|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: AMC to use pre-show projectors and satellite to distribute movie
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-07-2004 01:47 AM
quote: Mitchell Cope
Quality wasn't the issue. Marketability was.
Well, duh.
AMC doesn't have to do well with this one, they just have to do it again. They will then have experience in digital distribution & exhibition & will have 'pioneered' it. That goes a long way on a press release or newspaper/magazine story about new media distribution practices. Subsequent showings can be on better projectors in some venues, as financing & promotion is worked out. The good thing about this system (from an AMC view) is that it's moving toward equipment-independent at each venue. You can have cheap projectors in one location, or in small auditoriums, better projectors as they can be put in place, even if they're not as good as 35mm or current theatrical DLP - as long as you keep the arguments *general* - "it's digital, we've had success with this, people can't tell the difference, it's better than old fashioned film because it doesn't scratch & humans don't have to touch it" - you can maintain a plausible argument with folks who don't want to investigate beneath the veneer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-07-2004 03:34 AM
quote: Chris Hipp
yes it should, but no. if you have a "moviewatcher" card then you do get $2 off. I guess that is somethign at least.
Ah, but Chris, then they would have to offer a "VIDEOwatcher" card! At least if they want to claim they haven't violated any "truth in advertising" laws.
And Gordon, yeah, silly me to think a print could be playable after making only a few rounds through those assembly-line projection factories.
The only problem with this whole scenario is that there is no way to make megabucks out of showing films without big stars, big special effects, big controversy or big advertising budgets -- and if the astological bodies are aligned just right, all of the above. No; exhibitors are business men....usually smart business men. And looking at their success model over the years shows that they are only interested in stuffing money into their pockets by running blockbusters or the top 20 grossing pictures of the moment. There is very little interest out there in marginal, low-budget product, unless it has the potential for becoming blockbuster hits, like THE BLARE WITCH PROJECT or FARENHEIT 911. And how many low-budget independent releases become that type of blockbuster?
There has never been any dirth of independently produced, small budget "art films," many of very which are of very decent, even award-winning quality. And they didn't need digital projection to show them....they were readily available, just-waiting-to-be-booked on 35mm film. Yet they get very little play on the big boys multiplex screens; they get most of their play in the "art-house ghetto."
The top exhibitors have no interest in showing films that are not presold for them. They are not in the business of marketing movies. And unless movies are well marketed (at distribution's expense), there is no money in them for the chains, at least not the kind of money that prompts an exhibitor to book "art-house" titles.
Why on earth would a chain want to take on the added burden of marketing someone else's film (unless the filmmaker practically turns over almost all ownership to the chain). Even then, why would the chain take on such a risk? That would make them distributors of product they have already demonstrated no interest or belief in? They certainly aren't going to make a decision to take on the costly addition of an area traditionally handled by the distributor's well-honed marketing department in the hopes that, if they are really lucky, one of those hundreds of independent films will rise to the level of blockbuster status after a sizable, out-of-pocket marketing investment. The hope of that happening is just pie-in-the-sky and smart exhibitor business men want their pie down on earth and in their wallets.
Bottom line, they don't run independent "small" films when all they need to incurr is the traditional exhibition costs -- why would they even consider running these same films when they would have to shell out additional marketing costs for them as well?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-08-2004 12:29 PM
quote: Paul Linfesty
Actually it was to give independent theatres access to major studio films.
While this is correct, it is still only partially correct. The use of the word "actually" here seems to suggest that my answer was incorrect. I stand by my answer, adding the following...
The Consent Decree eliminated, among other things, the practices commonly known as blind bidding and block booking which had left independent exhibitors without much of a "say" in terms of what product they would show. So, it follows that the independent theatres already had access to the major studios' product up to that point. That was not the problem, per se. Rather, the concern surrounded the unfair conditions for use and the negative consequences thereof.
The short story, in plain English:
The "little guys" could get the "big movies" but then they couldn't show anybody else's movies. They also had to show a whole bunch of crappy movies in order to get a few good ones. They also never knew which would be good ones or bad ones because they were not permitted to preview any of those movies. There was also no guarantee that they would get a movie at the time of release or at some later point. Furthermore, they might find themselves competing directly with a bigger "studio theatre" across the street or on the same street or in the same neighborhood. Being so tightly tied-up with the big movies meant they could not show "independent" movies. Hence, both independent exhibitors and producers were being screwed by that kind of deal. Hence, the investigation, lawsuit and the eventual Consent Decree.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 09-08-2004 02:39 PM
The Consent Decree eliminated, among other things, the practices commonly known as blind bidding and block booking which had left independent exhibitors without much of a "say" in terms of what product they would show.
Eh? The "Consent Decrees" were back in the 1950's. Blind bidding was alive and well until well into the 1980's, and to some extent still exists today. Sometime in the 1970's, Pennsylvania made it illegal, but that only applied to that state.
In addition, the "Consent Decrees" only apply to those companies that signed agreements with the Justice Department to abide by them, in return for the Justice Department dropping their anti-trust lawsuits against them. Other companies, and companies that did not exist at that time are not bound by them, and are only subject to the broader anti-trust laws.
/Mitchell
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic