Theatrical Services Order Form: Fill & Download for Free

No, of course not. Betamax is going to kill theatres within five years, tops. After all, why should people be satisfied with the 25 movies at their local multiplex when they can get thousands of titles at their local video store!Oh, wait. That was 1980. Betamax is dead and theatres are still here. Also, there is precisely one video rental place within about a five mile radius of my house and it’s mostly there to serve film students at the nearby university. At least it’s closer than the nearest place where I can actually buy wide varieties of physical media - that’s at the end of a transit line.Streaming seemed like a good idea at the time, but it’s showing massive cracks. Netflix was smart enough to move away from the DVD rental business when Blockbuster thought it would last forever, but the problem with Netflix’s business model is that anyone can copy it.And everyone has. Big content owners used to be happy with the licensing fees they got from Netflix but once they found out how easy it was they started their own streaming services.Note that Netflix isn’t even in the image above.Now, as a Canadian, I have to laugh because if I were American I would have to subscribe to CBS All Access and DC Universe to watch shows I get as part of my extended cable package up here and which are streamed, for free, on their own streaming channel.Now, us movie goers still have an advantage - we can still pay per movie to watch one. We don’t have to sign up for a theatre subscription in order to see “No Time to Die” in a theatre, even if it will cost like $17 a ticket.And people have tried to get content to support their particular media idea, and it’s never worked out in the long term.Ted Turner bought satellite bandwidth and an entire back movie catalogue in order to make the Superstation a success, but again technology caught up to him and by 2010 TBS was no more, although it lives on in other forms.Remember Sony Music? It was formed for the precise purpose of providing content to these - MiniDisc players. Sony figured that to get access to their music catalogue people would buy these like nuts. They didn’t. Nowadays, most people don’t even keep music on separate media - they do it on all-purpose media like flash memory on their phone. Even disc jockeys work from laptops nowadays.The reason why movies keep surviving is that they have an established marketing plan so they can take advantage of additional sources of revenue after their theatrical run which, in many cases, covers the production costs plus a profit. Right now, Netflix keeps taking on debt in order to build its content library with the hopes that it can continue to grow its subscriber base in an increasingly competitive market. Disney, on the other hand, doesn’t have to rely on its subscriber base to make money - it makes money from its other revenue streams, including theatre receipts.

Realistically, Anakin would be killed by Grievous. His lightsaber form does not have a strong enough defense to repel Grievous' attacks for an extended period of time. However, we all know that Anakin can't die at this point, so we'll say he uses the Force to overcome Grievous.This changes almost every event that happens afterwards.Part of Anakin's mixed feelings about the Jedi Council stemmed from the fact that they did not send him to defeat Grievous even though he was convinced that he was the best choice. By sending him to confront Grievous, the Council will regain Anakin's loyalty and he will return to Coruscant as a hero. Without Anakin’s distrust of the Jedi Council, Palpatine does not reveal his identity on order to turn the young Jedi to the Dark Side. Mace Windu visits the Chancellor alone to make sure he drops his emergency powers and ends up dueling Sidious. He kills Palpatine and the Republic is thrown into turmoil at what the Senate sees as the murder of its head. Mace is brought on trial, but is able to convince the Senate that Palpatine was a Sith Lord. Anakin is uneasy at this turn of events, but does not turn to the Dark Side. Republic intelligence eventually finds the Separatist leaders on Mustafar and Anakin and Obi-wan are sent to capture them. The leaders of the Confederacy are brought back to Coruscant alive and stand trial. Since Anakin does not fall fto the Dark Side, Padmé does not die and Anakin is expelled from the Jedi Order when the Council finds out that he is married to Padmé. Padmé is released from service and they raise Luke and Leia on Naboo.All in all, a much happier and less theatrically satisfying ending.

I'll be contrary, because that's how I operate, and say that I can't wait for simultaneous release schedules for theater and DVD/on-demand.Once upon a time movies were made to be seen silent, they were made to be seen with a live orchestra, they were made to be seen in black and white...until they weren't. Not all movies have to be made to be seen in the theater.Some movies absolutely deserve to be seen in theater and you are doing them a great injustice by not doing so. So much effort is invested in the cinematography, sound design, direction, action, set design, score, special effects etc. that it's truly tragic if you haven't seen it in a theatrical setting. I personally haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia simply because I haven't had the chance to see it in the theater and I know that anything less would do an injustice to the film. Most movies that come out of the studio system right now are built to be seen in a theater.And, when done well, they're great. But because they're built for the theater, they are expensive and often have to pander to the lowest common denominator, all for a release that generates revenue for a few months or so before going to DVD/TV anyway.The theater business has overbulit, not Hollywood's fault. The content coming from Hollywood can't sustain them now let alone for the future as studios are producing less. Theaters have already had to diversify by showing sporting events, theater and opera. Too many multiplexes for the amount of tentpole type films that can keep their theaters full. And their price point tends to be too high for people in the market for most art house films, the especially ones that aren't generating must-see buzz. It's a bad business model that needs an overhaul. Fairly soon, you are going to see these giant multiplexes, especially in smaller markets, closing down because they simply can't keep running movies to empty seats.So what's the solution? Less theaters, more simultaneous releases. There will be the big, tentpole films that require theater viewing shown in the theaters, possibly for weeks. The simultaneous release to DVD or download will be pricey for opening weekend, encouraging people to see it in theaters, then slowly drop as the film filters out of theaters. And people will continue to see these kinds of films in theaters because films are often a social activity and sometimes people want to leave their houses and spend money.But sometimes people don't want to leave their houses or spend a lot of money. What will really benefit from simultaneous release are the smaller films. How many of you rush out with a date to pay $30 plus popcorn to see the latest Mark Duplass film, if it's even playing in your area? I love him, but that's a lot of money for something I can see on DVD a few months later and very few people are talking about anyway. And what if you're a cinefile living in small town Indiana? These films never play there. BUT, what if more people could see it opening weekend at a lower price point and in their own home? Smaller films might actually become profitable. Some filmmakers don't build their films around elaborate sets, sound design, or cinematography. So they don't HAVE to be seen in theaters. And if more filmmakers knew that their films would be viewed more on a large screen TV than a theater, they may take that into account, artistically.The business needs to evolve to provide the mid-to-low budget films an opportunity. Sure it's an art form that thrives on high-budget spectacle and visuals. But it's also a medium that can exist in the small and intimate of your living room. As a filmmaker, I think it's fun for people to see a film in a theater and enjoy the shared experience. A lot of that is also vanity, as filmmakers we like to control everything, even the manner in which our vision is consumed.But ego aside, I think that it's more important that a film get actually seen and become part of a larger cultural conversation. That's how it makes more money and builds your career. So, if that requires simultaneous release and less control over the way people view it, then I support it.*******Responding to the below answer from Anonymous********I wish that the demise of the theater wasn't the inevitable future, but not recognizing the truth would lead us toward the path of the music industry or Blockbuster Video. The business model will change and you must give the consumer what they want or someone else will, likely someone from Silicon Valley.Studios do not make the majority of their profits on theatrical release. The P&A (trailers, dubbing, prints, shipping, customs, ad buys) is very expensive as is the cut taken by theater owners. The majority of their profit on a film is made from television licensing, then DVD sales, then theatrical. Pretty soon, since cable is also giving way to online, on-demand services will probably pick up the revenue lost from television licensing deals. From purely a studio/Wall Street point of view, there's no love lost if theatrical was eliminated entirely in the near future. To them, theaters are a middle man.So will studios spend $30mil on Black Swan or Social Network. Sure, if there's profit to it. It's more about audiences starting to shift their expectations as to where the best movies are being played, and more and more it's being delivered to them online via on-demand services. My favorite TV show, Arrested Development, is now being produced by Netflix. Pretty soon, they'll probably be starting to produce my favorite movies...or someone like them. The quality is already getting better than American Pie Band Camp. The talent right now is still circling around theatrical. But when people can't get their passion projects made due all studio movies being sequels or toy-inspired movies, they'll migrate.Once studios figure out what price points and tiers they can arrange with on-demand, the content will start to shift. It's already happening, slowly, and will pick up the pace once the profits are more secure. Theaters be damned.I don't think theatrical viewing will go away and I don't wish it to. But I do think that the theatrical experience will become a premium ticket, it already costs $15 in LA for a ticket at a mediocre AMC, more for a good experience at the Arclight. People go to concerts even though they own the song on their iPods. They go to sporting events when it's on their TV. People will always leave their homes in some capacity to see movies. Heck, people go to see rereleases of films when the DVD is available now. And do you think studios rerelease in order to make theatrical profits? No, they do it to sell more DVDs or on-demand viewings. The theatrical release is basically expensive advertising for the DVD/on-demand because that's what audiences are still expecting. Until they don't. Studios can't wait for that day.People really do like going to the theater, once in a while. More of them would like to see it at home with an appropriate price point. As for stars and filmmakers, less and less will get the theatrical release. We'll complain, for sure, but let's be honest, ultimately we have to pay the rent/mortgage/Porsche payment and we'll go where the megaphone is.I do believe in the near future that studios will find a way to squeeze out the majority of theaters to get content directly to the consumer and still pay their overhead. We may see more of a contraction of the industry but to ignore that it's coming is to bury our heads in the sand.