Movie Theaters Fight Back–With Satellite Dishes of Their Own

Satellite transmission will save Hollywood a bundle – and maybe even transform the theater-going experience

  • Share
  • Read Later

Cinema owners looking to pry couch potatoes away from their cable- and satellite-TV hookups will soon have a new tool: satellite dishes of their own.

Last week, a coalition of the three biggest theater chains (AMC, Regal, and Cinemark) and five Hollywood studios (Universal, Warner Bros., Disney, and Paramount, and Lionsgate) announced that satellite delivery of movies to theaters nationwide – long a dream of the industry – will finally commence this summer, with a full rollout by year’s end. (Sony and 20th Century Fox are in talks to join this group.)

(READ: The Death of Cinema)

Satellite service won’t save any money for ticketbuyers, though it will for the studios, which had already slashed the costs of distribution by getting most of North America’s theaters to convert from 35mm to digital projection. Instead of shipping expensive, bulky reels of film to your multiplex, they can now send movies encoded on hard drives—at less than one-tenth the cost. Satellite, which will allow theaters to download movies from a private network onto dedicated servers, should reduce distribution costs to a minimum.

The results may not please everyone. Small theater chains, independently owned movie houses, and indie-film distributors aren’t included in the coalition (at least, not yet). And a lot of theater owners may balk at buying one more piece of costly hardware after having barely weathered the conversion to digital projection. Over the past few years, that transition cost $70,000 to $100,000 per screen, and though the studios absorbed some of those expenses, many theaters either couldn’t afford to convert, or went bankrupt trying. The National Organization of Theater Owners estimated that the cost of digital conversion could ultimately darken as many as 10,000 screens, shuttering one in every four venues in North America. Of course, some cinemas (art and repertory houses, for instance) are keeping 35mm projectors, but celluloid exhibition – the way we saw movies for a century – will likely become a specialty business catering to a niche audience.

(READ: Can This Man Save the Movies? (Again?))

Still, film purists who prefer the grain of celluloid to the icy look of digital or the murk of 3D may find consolation in the prospect that satellite transmission will also allow theaters to show more diverse fare, beyond just movies. Cultural offerings, like The Met: Live in HD, which simulcasts performances from New York’s Metropolitan Opera to more than 750 cinemas nationwide, including select theaters operated by the AMC, Regal, and Cinemark chains. And imagine watching major sporting events on a screen as tall as your house. That beats the living room couch, doesn’t it?

[ Correction: The original version of the story erroneously reported that The Met was broadcast to only several dozen screens exclusive to AMC ]


So every time there's a thunderstorm or a blizzard or hell, even just clouds in the sky, the movie will be completely pixelated or not show up at all

ravila 2 Like

Cost is an issue when I'm considering taking the family out to the movies, but just as important is the thought of having to put up with noisy children, people talking (to each other and on the cell phone), feet being rested on the back rest of the seats in front of them and never seeing a theater employee calling this inconsiderate people out! Its not my job to report it, i paid to see a movie without having to be interrupted.

Piacevole 1 Like

@ravila At home watching a movie, I can be completely comfortable, and I don't have to take out a mortgage to buy popcorn, either.  I don't have to listen to a conversation behind me.  But what I've noticed about a lot of time in the theatre is that the pictures aren't truly in focus.  At home, I have HD clarity.  Why should I settle for fuzz in a theatre, and pay for it, to boot?


Last movie I saw in the theatres was Wreck-It Ralph, and I can't remember how long before that.  With the costs going up and up and now cost-saving efforts being made by the studios and chains with absolutely no intent to pass the savings onto the consumer, I will continue to vote with my dollars and skip the cinema.

tmike5 1 Like

Since the cost of distributing movies will be less what theater owners and movie distributers should do is reduce the ticket price for customers. Unless a movie is something I really want to see, I usually wait till the movie is released on DVD or Bluray since it costs me $40 to $50 to take my family to the movies and it makes more sense to wait a few months to buy it and then watch the movie as many times as I want. 

Piacevole 1 Like

@tmike5 Mr, too.  The last movie I saw at a theatre was Lincoln, and I don't remember the one before that.  I have no idea why people go to theatres, really.  The expense has gotten to be crazy.