Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Paramount kills off 35mm in the US

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Paramount kills off 35mm in the US (Page 10)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Author

Topic: Paramount kills off 35mm in the US

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 01-29-2014 12:05 PM

Scott, AMC played it as well as Cineplex Odeon. The Cineplex theatre grossed $275k off the 70mm screen alone.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-29-2014 12:25 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.

A lot has changed in two years.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-29-2014 02:58 PM

Regarding Interstellar, my guess is very few, if any, 35mm film prints will be produced. Most film prints will be of the 15-perf 70mm IMAX variety. And there probably won't be very many of them made either. Shit, Paramount is the same studio that made only six 70mm DTS prints of Titanic, and James Cameron footed the bill for their production.

Back on the topic of releasing movies direct to TV, it's really a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

The most lucrative TV shows are ones that have a captive audience. The audience has zero choice at all about when they can watch the show. They have to see it with everyone else at the same time. This is the main reason why Fox and the NFL can charge $4 million for a 30 second commercial during Super Bowl XLVIII. Viewer numbers are going to be huge for that live event. Some TV series are benefiting from the same thing thanks in large part to social media. Those who wanted to time-shift viewing the series finale of Breaking Bad risked getting the ending spoiled by others commenting about it on Twitter and Facebook.

Streaming services are not based on the captive audience model at all, much less even an advertising based model. Streaming services are entirely about convenience on when to watch a show and at a low subscription cost. That's not a platform that would be very friendly to the release of a major movie studio production.

Subscribers to Netflix, Amazon Prime and other services like the low, flat subscription fee. I'm certain there would be quite a lot of resistance to charging them the flat monthly fee and then a bunch extra to watch a new movie.

Pay per view events work in some cases, like a major boxing match or UFC event. The people broadcasting those PPV events have very tight controls on them. And it's usually best not to time-shift a live sports event to the DVR to risk getting the outcome spoiled by those who have already seen it. I don't think a major studio movie will have the same appeal in a PPV platform. I think a lot of viewers would be turned off by the high price for viewing the movie broadcast during its original airing on their living room TV set. They might be tempted to wait a couple months for the Blu-ray or DVD and then watch that on their TV set.

| IP: Logged

Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-29-2014 03:05 PM

In L.A., "The Master" played commercial engagements in 70mm at the Arclight Hollywood and The Landmark (Landmark's eponymous 12-screen showcase in western L.A.). BOTH of them used rented (temporary) equipment. I don't know the specifics, but the report was that the print at The Landmark had to be replaced because of ... scratching. And that was in spite of having an assigned (and long-experienced) projectionist staying with the projector/print all day long, at least for the opening week or two.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-06-2014 02:54 PM

I'm at the UDITOA convention in Florida, and we just had a presentation by NATO. Currently there are 36,929 digital screens. I didn't catch the actual number of total US screens, but it was just over 39,000. This means there are less than 3000 film screens left in the country (about 5% of total screens).

Furthermore, once the Deluxe lab closes, the price of 35mm prints is expected to reach $2500-$3000.

A couple of operators still running 35mm said they are having to pay $400 minimums on most titles (I'm assuming that means a minimum of $400 in film rental).

| IP: Logged

Tony Ratcliff
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Madison, IN, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 02-06-2014 04:33 PM

Yes, $400-$500 guarantees, some required up-front, are the norm now for 35mm, even when off-break.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 02-06-2014 04:50 PM

So far no advances or guarantees in Pennsylvania.

But then advances and guarantees are specifically prohibited by Pennsylvania law.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 02-06-2014 05:39 PM

quote: Justin Hamaker
Currently there are 36,929 digital screens. I didn't catch the actual number of total US screens, but it was just over 39,000. This means there are less than 3000 film screens left in the country (about 5% of total screens).

Do those figures include arthouse/rep/cinematheque type places and part-time venues, or are they just for first-run mainstream houses? If those 3,000 screens include the arthouses (which were always going to carry on showing film for longer, either for ideological reasons or because they regularly show titles that are still only available on film), then the conversion is to all intents and purposes done.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-06-2014 07:33 PM

My understanding is that 39,000+ number includes art houses, discount theatres, and any other theatre playing current movies. It may not include some exclusive repertory theatres, or other specialty theatres (such as Bollywood only theatres).

And yes, the digital conversion is essentially done. Although they don't have numbers, many of the theatres which are still running 35mm are planning to close once film is no longer available.

One thing I haven't heard is how many drive-ins that were planning to close, will be taking advantage of the new VPF opportunity. But there were some unconverted owners represented here, and talking to the various parties they needed to talk to. One thing that's nice to see is Barco and GDC are really bending over backwards to try and get those theatres installed.

| IP: Logged

Mike Spaeth
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1129
From: Marietta, GA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 02-06-2014 10:11 PM

The Bollywood distributors phased out film in June of last year. No one is bringing 35mm prints to North America any more (except, maybe, Fox).

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 02-07-2014 01:54 AM

Many thanks for the clarification, Justin.

My reading of this is that we're now in to the long tail. The 3,000 or so theatres that are still open for business and do not have the capability to show DCPs are either

A - Winding down and planning to close once film print availability is either withdrawn or becomes too expensive, or

B - Theatres that are part-time, attached to archives or museums, show titles that are unlikely to be available in DCP form soon, or a combination thereof.

Which means that for the mainstream movie exhibition industry, we are now about where we were in the summer of 1929 (US) or 1930 (Europe) in relation to the conversion to sound. Effectively, job done.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-07-2014 02:46 AM

That's really the way I take this. Who knows how many of those <3000 theatres will wind up going digital. I know some of them are obsolete locations run by the major exhibitors which are just being milked for every last dime before closing.

I have a feeling many of theatres "forced" out of business are going to be those in very small towns which simply do not do enough business to justify the expense of digital. Theatres that were never really operated for the intent of making money. I picture something run more as a hobby by a retired person, or a long time family owned business that was kept open more as a service to the community.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-19-2014 07:06 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.

I think I posted about this in another thread some months back, but I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC and the print was absolutely crap. It was filled with dirt and scratches. Clearview owned it at the time and still does, but it's now run by BowTie, which bought the other remaining Clearview theaters.

I don't know what happened. I don't know if it was a lab problem or whether the projectionist wasn't used to handling film, especially 70mm film, and dropped the film off the platter. And I didn't think the DTS soundtrack was any great shakes either.

It was really disappointing because I was so excited to see a new film in 70mm.

At that presentation, especially because the single-screen Ziegfeld has a reputation as a quality theatre and many premieres are held there, I realized that film presentation truly was over. Because the fact is that a digital presentation of that film would have been better than the 70mm presentation that I saw.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-20-2014 05:16 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
I know some of them are obsolete locations run by the major exhibitors which are just being milked for every last dime before closing.

"Obsolete location" and "milked of every dime" are contradictory. Any obsolete location still operated by a major exhibitor is because it loses less money than it would cost to buy out the lease. If there were dimes to be milked, they would upgrade and keep it open.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 02-20-2014 08:14 AM

quote:
I think I posted about this in another thread some months back, but I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC and the print was absolutely crap. It was filled with dirt and scratches. Clearview owned it at the time and still does, but it's now run by BowTie, which bought the other remaining Clearview theaters.

I don't know what happened. I don't know if it was a lab problem or whether the projectionist wasn't used to handling film, especially 70mm film, and dropped the film off the platter. And I didn't think the DTS soundtrack was any great shakes either.

It was really disappointing because I was so excited to see a new film in 70mm.

At that presentation, especially because the single-screen Ziegfeld has a reputation as a quality theatre and many premieres are held there, I realized that film presentation truly was over. Because the fact is that a digital presentation of that film would have been better than the 70mm presentation that I saw.

yes it was a rather odd interesting choice to film 'this' in 70mm - and yes the the DTS soundtrack was rather subdued [a comment, not an attack (eyeing Steve Guttag)]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.