Well folks, it’s been a tough week of arguing. And since this is my last post, it makes sense to sum up. But before that, it’s worth (in the most condescending of ways) looking back on Steve’s previous post regarding home theatre prices and simultaneous releases.

The idea of a simultaneous cinema-home video release is indeed one that has been talked a lot about recently. It hasn’t helped when the few examples who tried (Steven Soderbergh’s Bubble, Michael Winterbottom’s The Road to Guantanamo, made next to nothing in cinema) have not fared well. The stats that Steve quoted are interesting, but the figures fail to take into account other factors. For example, DVD rentals and retail are being released sooner not in some overall plan to create a simultaneous release, but because of the increasing amount of films released each year, which ultimately leads to films being taken out of the screens earlier, and hence an earlier DVD release date. For if simultaneous DVD and cinema release dates were used, surely it would have a huge impact in a movie’s box-office intake, and potentially cripple the industry. And no one wants that. No, the only way I imagine simultaneous releases would work is for films that can only get a very limited release (e.g just New York and LA arthouse cinemas) and this is the only way for the rest of the country to see it.

Now Steve has quoted a well-selected choice of equipment to provide a home theatre experience. While I concede that $1000 or so will nab you a very impressive projector, his 80 buck sound system only spurts out 40 watts RMS for the subwoofer and only 50 watts for the satellite speakers… you’ll need double that if you want to get the real power of a cinema’s sound system. But regardless, all this adds up to about $1347. And as Steve calculates, a cinema ticket costs $24 when you factor in tickets, transport, and snacks, which accounts for 57 trips. But what Steve failed to factor in is the average person. I would consider myself a fan of film and I only see about 30 films a year in the cinema (and I have one mainstream cinema 5 minutes walk one way, and an arthouse cinema 25 minutes the other!). A quick glance at some stats shows that in 2006-2007 the average amount of cinema visits per person in the US is 6.5 times. Being nice, I’ll factor out infants and geriatrics, and say 10 for the average 10-70 year old. So that means that your home theatre system will pay for itself after 5 years or so? And of course that doesn’t factor in the times when you HAVE to go to a theatre, be it a date, a buzz-inducing release, or any other social occasion. And believe me, Steve, there’s more people that do go out every Friday night to a bar or club than those who don’t.

And not only that, these days it only takes 5 years to make your gadgets obsolete, especially when we’re seeing the development of holodiscs (they hold about 100 times the amount of info a DVD does and last for a century). So is it really worth it?

Ultimately, there are potential ways in which the death of cinema could occur. If simultaneous releases were to happen, if cinemas didn’t cater for changing trends in snacks and comfortable settings. But most importantly, if people changed. And I just don’t see that happening. You know, about 80 years ago many foresaw the death of plays once “talkies” appeared in cinemas. But even today many top dramas that we see in the cinema are based on plays (Mamma Mia, Doubt, Frost/Nixon), and in most major cities drama is still going strong, even if it’s not as dominant as it used to be. There are certain aspects of our life that will always remain, because going out and experiencing something different that our home is important, no matter how many times we adjust the furniture to pretend it’s another room. And while Steve’s arguments for a home theatre experience are generally convincing, and in theory it would be great if we could all be happy with staying in instead of going out, those arguments won’t change human nature.