|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: R.I.P Film Projectors
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-28-2011 11:37 PM
Yeah, you're pretty much right. Maybe it's the pills I'm taking. (Not joking.)
Regardless of how edgy I am about it, I think my point still stands true: Movie executives have been relying more on fancy words to describe old things and just plain bullshitting than they have on providing substance. And, this is Hollywood we're talking about! The land of bullshit! And, now, the bullshitters are believing their own bullshit.
The problem with layering abstract concepts on top of abstract concepts and using fancier and fancier words to describe things is that people are eventually going to get wise. You can only string people along so much before they stop believing you.
That is what I think is happening. The underlying concepts are starting to crack and the mountain of bullshit is beginning to cave in.
Look at what Bobby just said. Only two movies on the list of upcoming would-be blockbusters are new, he doesn't seem interested in going to any of them at this point and he says that he's likely to wait for them to come out on home video before he watches them.
When the people who are in the movie business don't even want to watch the movies anymore, that's pretty freakin' bad!
The switch from film to digital video is just a symptom of the problem. Hollywood just can't sustain itself on the course it is on. The empty suits are squirming and they are trying to weasel out of the bind they put themselves into and they are doing it on the backs of the movie theaters.
They are counting on the pundits and the reviewers and so-called insiders to band together and proclaim film to be dead and that DIGITAL MOVIES will usher in a new era. They are trying to take advantage of the herd mentality.
Maybe I am acting like a cranky, old man but, the way I see it, theater owners have been led down the primrose path and, unless something changes, they could be coming to the end of the road or, at least, the end of movie theaters the way we know them today.
Again, back to the bottom line. People in the movie business, the studios and the theaters, need to quit using fancy words to describe the same old crap and start producing some new crap or else they'll all be in trouble.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 12-29-2011 01:47 AM
I totally agree with Randy.
He's not being the cranky old man here, he is stating a trueism.
The theatres that can afford the conversion will do well- for the time being anyway. Those that can not afford it will just close.
Which ever way you cut this, it sucks arse big time.
quote: Randy Stankey
theater owners have been led down the primrose path and, unless something changes, they could be coming to the end of the road or, at least, the end of movie theaters the way we know them today.
The studios will not and do not give a shit about these cinemas. That suits them, they do not want the exhibition industry to skive off coin from any given movie's bottom line. Why would they? It's called 'cutting out the middle man', and guess what? Cinemas (in the eyes of the studio money men) ARE the middle men.
And what better way to get this process going?
...how about forcing a technical change, under the guise of 3D capability, that will prove to be way too expensive for many locations to fund.
Okay, so far it's Studios 1 Exhibitors 0.
Next step is to lock down operation of the very same equipment they have forced on to the exhibitors. How smart is this!
Would anyone here buy a car and only get to drive it when the manufacturer gives you the keys? Fuck no!
Studios 2 Exhibitors 0.
Next step. Maintainenance and running costs on the projectors. Do the math and cross check the running ( AND initial purchasing cost) of 35/70mm film based systems versus 2k/4k/whatever k projectors. On longevity alone, 35mm equipment shits on any digital projector available today.
Studios 3 Exhibitors 0.
Final step. Make the product virtually identical to what is available in the home.
We have to screen DVD's of some movies for fuck sake! No prizes for guessing what Joe Public watches at home. So why would he want to come out and pay a premium to get what he gets at home for peanuts?
Studios 4 Exhibitors still 0.
So now we are forced to show an identical product, for more, at more inconvienience to the patron and we are supposed to think this is a good idea? WTF?
Sorry, but Randy is spot on here. It pisses me right off when I constantly hear the bleatings of the pro-conversion set. THE BOX-OFFICE FIGURES PROVE THE DIGITAL ADVANTAGE IS A CON....and the best part from the studios POV is that the cost is shunted onto the exhibitor.
I only hope those who have converted make more than enough profit to replace their equipment in 5-6 years time. Whether there will be cinemas as we know it in that time span is a question to ponder.
Now THIS is being a cranky old man.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-29-2011 03:05 AM
Quick question for those who think studios don't give a shit about theatres...
Why have so many studios own movie theatre chains around the world?
Ian, in your part of the world, Village Roadshow produces movies, distributes movies and show them in their Village Cinemas. They also own a number of cinemas in the United States, and co-own Golden Village in Singapore alongside Golden Harvest, who themselves are a producer, distributor and exhibitor of motion pictures. The French company Pathe produces and distributes movies, and owns a chain of theatres around Europe, in conjunction with Gaumont, another company that produces and distributes movies. You can also count India's Reliance MediaWorks as a company who not only produces and distributes movies, but also owns chains of cinemas around the world.
And, of course, let's not forget that Landmark Theatres is owned by 2929 Entertainment, who also produce movies and distributes movies through Magnolia Pictures. Or that Warner Brothers owns a number of cinema chains around the world. Or that Paramount Pictures (who until yesterday operated Mann Theatres in conjunction with Warner Brothers through a limited partnership) is a part of National Amusements, which operates more than 1,500 movie theatres around the world. Or that Disney spent $14m restoring one theatre in Hollywood to use as their flagship theatre.
And let's not forget that in our very recent past, Sony used to own Loews, that Universal used to own 49% of Cineplex Odeon, that Cannon owns a number of cinemas around the world, or that studios have been finding ways to get around the Paramount Decree since the Paramount Decree was first issued in the late 1940s.
So can we PLEASE, once and for all, get this bullshit belief that the studios don't give a damn about theatres out of the argument?
Digital benefits the studios in the long run, because they don't need to spend billions each year creating 35mm prints. It benefits independents, who don't need to spend millions of dollars on 35mm prints to get their films in to theatres. It benefits the environment, which isn't being strip mined for resources to create 35mm prints, or being polluted from planes and trucks getting those prints to theatres. It benefits theatres, who now have a greater variety of programming to play in their theaters.
The only people the digital conversion isn't helping are those who were too stubborn and/or foolish to wake up to the fact that the biggest seismic shift in their industry in their lifetime was breathing down upon them, and did nothing to prepare for it.
And that's the only way it cuts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-29-2011 06:24 AM
Hmmmm.....how to join this latest volley of "discussion."
Historically, studios have only "liked" exhibition WHEN they own it. As others have said, without them owning it, they are paying a middle man and are not making all of the profit.
Part of the declining revenues from theatres is the studio's doing. Their release window between cinema and home is WAY TOO SHORT. It hurts BOTH markets because the potential patron now can choose to wait to see that big release at home, where it is now ultimately cheaper than in the cinema (try taking your family to a theatre for less than the cost of even an expensive BluRay).
These short release windows even hurt home sales...there is no need to rush out and get a movie that you may have already seen not too long ago. Furthermore, once it hits the home market...it seems to stay there indefinitely so again, there is no rush to get it (Disney does limited home releases on their classics).
If the studios would bring back 1-year plus release windows on the theatrical releases, they would see a marked increase on their theatrical ticket sales. Furthermore, they can have all of the hoopla once it does get to the home market. Instead, they choose to dilute BOTH markets and cry about poor sales.
They also need to loose this fixation with theft as the cause for lost sales. Anyone that thinks that all of those "thefts" would turn into revenue is delusional. Some of it would as there are those that fall to temptation or too-good-to-be-true pricing but by and large, those that steal content (movies, software...etc) would not buy or could not afford it in a legitimate manner. This does not condone theft, something I truly despise but I also realize that the elimination of movie theft would barely change the bottom line of a movie's gross, if at all.
As to the DCinema part of this "discussion" DCinema has zero affect on boxoffice...even the 3D BS was ALWAYS possible with film...Hollywood only CHOSE to release it digital only. Heck we still have studios like Fox and Disney that CHOOSE to only release digitally.
How many of you that are now digital or plan to be digital before October 2012 paid for your equipment WITHOUT VPFs? Of those of you that have your hands still up...how many of you could have paid for your equipment WITHOUT VPFs? Those of you with your hands still up are the ones that can truly afford DCinema...the rest of you are heading for "going out of business." The reason is you really can't afford the equipment you bought. In fact, you'll be in for some rude surprises in a few years when that light engine goes and the bill will be $15K-20K and then it happens again on another projector. This stuff is EXPENSIVE and the current fire-sale prices on DCinema equipment will fade away after 2012 when the sales plummet. Those that don't realize how cheap DCinema equipment is in the video industry should check out what "equivalent" A/V projectors sell for (compare resolution, and brightness). Dealers are currently forced into new lows in pricing due to the high volume (a missed sale could mean missing dozens of systems, not just one complex). This creates instability in that market place too. A company must charge enough to remain stable. Those that charge too little generally fold up once the boom is over because their business model was based on high-volume.
Whereas the exhibitor never bore the cost of 35mm film (except maybe in shipping) the costs associated with film were that of the distributor so it is clear who digital benefits when it comes to just the media.
Very little of digital's theatre benefits can not be done with film, despite it not having been done. That is, in automating. Digital can certainly lower the amount of man-power required in the cinema and that should result in some cost savings (which is reoccurring so its advantage there should not be underestimated). It also will generally give more flexibility with moving titles around a complex to better fit the crowds for a type of picture during a time of day (kiddie movies doing better in the afternoon, dating movies doing better in the evenings). Note, film could do this too, if a complex were set up reel-to-reel so a movie could be moved BEFORE it ended but few here really understood the many advantages of running on reels...however this would require manpower so again, digital will win on this flexibility. Build ups/tear downs, again, digital wins on employee costs associated with those tasks.
Most exhibitors I'm talking to really are thinking in the short term...they are picking deals that seem like the cheapest TODAY without thought as to how much it will cost them day-to-day. Be that in lamp costs, electricity to run the theatre (less sophisticated automation to manage electric usage more efficiently, not just increases in electric bill on lamps), less sophisticated system to really reduce manpower more. It is the reoccurring costs exhibitors should look at more closely.
The other thing is who is supporting this stuff? Many NOCs are not doing a good job and many installers are just banging this stuff in. There seems to be a growing market for fixing bad installs and providing superior service on supporting the equipment. This is not to say that film installs were done in a spectacular manner but like it or not, film equipment has a MUCH longer longevity and can be fixed often locally. I find exhibitors not doing their part of keeping filters changed/cleaned. This stuff is expensive and they should be doing everything possible to make it last as long as possible. Trust me, keeping your filters clean will be much less time consuming that the time you should have been spending on keeping film projectors clean.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Richard May
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1057
From: Floral Park, NY USA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 12-29-2011 07:29 AM
So with the higher maintenance costs, higher costs for parts, longer time being down if there is a breakdown,the ridiculous cost of all the equipment, more equipment glitches than film ever had, how is this better again? Also, how are the small independent theaters that don't run mainstream movies going to convert and afford it? They're not. Who is protecting them? If digital is so much cheaper and better, why is the cost not being passed down to the customer? Digital is only an improvement on film because for the last many years, the big chains got rid of qualified projectionist and used people that had no business being in the booth. So for years after that they could promote how digital was going to be so much better. No more dirt, scratches, etc..... If you have the right people doing the job, film presentation would be perfect. Randy is not being cranky or talking shit. He's telling it like it is. There are many people that think this way. It doesn't matter though. Things are going to change regardless. Money is to be made. I don't think it will be by the theater owners though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic