posted 10-12-2006 11:57 PM                    

quote: Martin Brooks

---

The fact is that back in the Dolby 70mm days, theatres showing 70mm prints of Star Wars, Superman, Star Trek and many other films did most of the business. Was that incremental to the business if no 70mm prints had been made at all? That's impossible to tell. But the fact that consumers sought out 70mm presentations tells me that it made a difference. If you can find some old posts of mine about this, I quote direct figures from old issues of Variety. (I'll edit this post if I can find them.)

---

quote:

---

Paramount Pictures worked 68 70mm copies of Star Trek II. Impressive statistic is that some 20 percent of Trek's $60,000,000-plus gross has been earned in only four percent of its theaters — those booking the 70mm version.

---

quote:

---

Give the American moviegoing audience something special, and they'll turn out in droves. That was the lesson learned by Paramount Pictures, among other distributors, who went to the extra effort of making 70mm prints of "spectacle" films. Barry London, Paramount's vice president and general sales manager, reports that that the 68 prints his firm released in 70mm for "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" was the largest such big-format campaign in [Paramount's] history, "and it certainly justified our investment and the effort made by exhibitors."

During the first three weeks of their run, the big prints grossed nearly $8 million, or about $115,000 per print. And that average includes not only showcase theatres in major cities, but also houses in smaller markets such as Ta[c]oma, Little Rock, Modesto and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

This was hardly a fluke. During their long runs, the 49 oversize prints of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" pulled in more than $35 million. And Paramount provided a fresh 70mm print of "Raiders" for the Pacific Cinerama Dome Theatre in Los Angeles after the movie had already made its first, second, third and Academy Award runs in the city. The print ran for five weeks, grossing more than $400,000.

The lesson for both distributors and exhibitors, is obvious. When potential ticket buyers are presented with the opportunity to see something fresh, something unique and excitingly different, they'll buy tickets. They did it for 70mm, and they did it for 3-D.

But it's not a free ride. As London points out, a visual gimmick is not enough. The storyline must be there, and the audience must be made aware of the special treat through effective marketing. The technology also costs money: a 70mm print costs about nine times the price of a standard 35mm print, and exhibitors must have the equipment and rooms to do it justice.

Still, Paramount's two efforts, in big prints and in 3-D, should drive home the lesson that the movie theatre is very much alive and kicking — kicking out enormous profits fo exhibition, distribution and all the segments of the film industry that depend on them. In the fascination with cable, pay-per-view TV, satellites and the other new technologies, that's a lesson worth remembering.

---

quote:

---

The gamble with making a lot of expensive large format prints (which cost roughly eight times that of standard 35mm) paid off as it was reported following the film's first week of release that the 70mm engagements, which were booked into 13 percent of the theatres playing the film, accounted for 30 percent of the total gross. Lucasfilm Ltd. Senior Vice President Sid Ganis told the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner at the time that "everything George [Lucas] and Steven [Spielberg] have been hoping for — an awareness by exhibitors and audiences of the value of a quality presentation — has come of age."

---

posted 10-13-2006 07:40 PM                       

quote: Michael Coate

---

Are any of these what you're referring to?

---