|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Paramount kills off 35mm in the US
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-22-2014 06:11 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Wow, some of you guys are pessimists. But, the movie industry has been dying ever since the TV was introduced, but somehow it keeps managing to stay alive.
Movie theaters did lose a pretty big chunk of the population to TV as families were able to afford buying TV sets. It's likely a majority of Americans don't visit commercial movie theaters at all. But enough have been visiting movie theaters to keep them in operation. How much more of a percentage of the population can be lost to TV-only viewing habits before the movie theater industry runs into trouble?
The movie industry isn't immune to downward swings into crisis. If I recall history correctly, the movie industry fell into some seriously bad times between the mid 1960's to early 1970's. The once great MGM fell into financial trouble and started a long string of ownership changes and swings in and out of bankruptcy. Audiences grew tired of overly long musicals and other kinds of bloated epics. Big changes took place in popular culture. Hollywood was forced to take more chances. The 1970's turned out to be a pretty creative decade for the movie industry.
quote: Scott Jentsch
By and large, I do not think most people draw a distinction between film and digital cinema. They come for the movie. It's the theater's job to give them the best experience they will ever have watching that movie, which will keep them coming to the theater instead of waiting for it to show up on home video.
Even though movie theaters lost some of its audience to TV, theaters traditionally operated on a quality level completely above that of TV. Much bigger and better picture quality. That line of separation started to blur about 15 years ago, first with 5.1 surround sound getting into home theater and later HD video content. Theaters still operated with film. The average person couldn't set up a 35mm film projector in his house. It's only in the last few years that the differences in technology between home theater and the movie theater have almost vanished. Visually there's not much difference, at least not what the average person can notice, between 1080p Blu-ray and 2K D-cinema.
This notion about the audience not caring about differences between film and digital (or home digital vs. theatrical digital) is largely a big guess. My feeling is they don't know the differences. They don't know enough to deliberately not care. The audience still has the illusion commercial theaters are providing a technologically superior experience.
Maybe the movie studios and theaters have the right strategy in not being clear about the technology used to present the movie. Perhaps getting specific would do more to draw comparisons with what is available in home theater. But then there's nothing to stop consumer electronics companies selling TV sets, media players, etc. from making their own comparisons to the theatrical experience.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Sure, there are fans of the medium of film, just like there are fans of vinyl records, that have justifiable reasons and emotional reasons for doing so. However, the mainstream industry shift from vinyl and compact cassette did not kill the music industry, and even the shift from CD to downloads have not done so.
The music industry versus theaters is an apples to oranges comparison.
The music industry uses free or near-free mediums (radio, TV, cable, Internet) to showcase its product and encourage people to buy. Celebrity worship drives a lot of music sales too. The music industry is surviving, but it's not nearly as big as it was 2 or 3 decades ago. Live concerts are the only thing that gives the music industry something comparable to the theatrical movie-going experience, except the performance you're seeing is live. Concerts also tend to sell based on performer popularity rather than solely on the strength of a single album release. Some "dinosaur" bands haven't had a new hit in many years and are still selling out concerts.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Public perception can be changed very easily and it wouldn't take much time (maybe a few years at most) for the studios to cut the theatrical middle man altogether and not have a net-negative effect.
Cutting out the movie theaters is a big fantasy of some studio executives. Unfortunately I think such a ploy would back-fire on them and cause the big movie studios to collapse.
Commercial movie theaters are needed to help fund and market major movie productions. Taking the theaters out of the release schedule would also eliminate a big percentage of a movie's potential earnings. I believe the movie studios would not only lose all that box office business, but they would also make even less on the home video end due to a far less effective effort at generating buzz for a movie.
The theatrical run gives a movie a much greater mind share of the public than it would going direct to video. Some people will spend extra to see the movie in its theatrical release. They spread word of mouth about it. If it's a hit the press does its reports about box office grosses, interviews the stars, etc to generate even more buzz. By the time that movie is released on home video just about anyone who likes watching movies will be familiar with the title. On store shelves movies that had theatrical releases stand out among all those other straight to DVD releases.
Without movie theaters, the movie studio brands would be swallowed up by cable TV networks owned by their parent global media companies. Can you imagine Warner Bros. becoming a subsidiary of HBO? Without theaters I think that would happen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-23-2014 11:01 AM
Here's a few off the top of my head:
- Steven Soderbergh - directed "Behind the Candelabra" which won 2 Golden Globes
- Billy Bob Thornton - Fargo is going direct to TV
- David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
Martin Scorcese, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg have all been quoted in the last year or so as saying that the landscape of making and watching movies is changing. An entire generation is growing up watching and enjoying movies on their phones, tablets, and laptops. For that group, a 55" TV is a big screen!
This past weekend, the #1 movie (Ride Along) had an audience that was 54% over the age of 25. 85% of the audience for Jack Ryan over the age of 25. Lone Survivor was #1 last weekend, but 57% were 30 years of age or older. Wolf of Wall Street was 90% in the 25+ age group.
The resistance to watching a movie on a small screen is eroding every day. Is it because people want to watch a movie on a small screen? No, I think other factors come into play, with convenience and price at the top of that list.
My brother's truck is on its last legs, and has been for several years now. Through an unwillingness to spend the money to get a new(er) vehicle, he's poured a lot of his time and money into keeping that thing running. It should be taken out back and shot, but he continues to deny the inevitable and he's fully aware of it.
Film as a mainstream medium is dead. We can mourn its passing, but it should not prevent us from living our lives and moving forward. The costs involved with Digital Cinema may cause more than a few theaters to close down, and that's unfortunate when it happens to the good ones. However, in the cases of lousy theaters that should have been taken out back and shot years ago, that's a good thing. The industry will probably be healthier overall in the long run.
The theatrical exhibition industry needs to look ahead and figure out how to negotiate the best terms possible from the studios (getting movies for more favorable time periods, theaters in the same area able to compete equally, etc.) and work together to figure out how to overcome the myriad challenges of the business and deliver an excellent experience no matter what movie is playing on what medium.
Most of all, if they don't capture the hearts and minds of the sub-25 crowd, they'll continue to face a dwindling customer base. Perhaps this isn't the right forum, but I've never seen a discussion about how to attract certain demographics (teenagers, sub-25, 25-50 yr parents, families, etc.). I would hope that discussion is happening somewhere if not here...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-23-2014 11:45 AM
quote: Mark Hadjucki
It is interesting that Granada went on to run TV channels (all content without the "experience").
Their later businesses involved motorway services (1965 onward) who's only attraction to the customer was their convenient location (not pricing, quality or ambiance).
At the risk of veering off-topic, in the '30s and '40s Granada positioned themselves as the luxury brand in British cinemagoing: ornate buildings, comfy seats, plush furnishings, HVAC in all auditoria and all classes of seating, the first in their towns to get the premium movies and ticket prices above average. This book, about the British cinema industry during WWII, includes an entertaining account from a London suburban Granada manager, who noted that everyone would flock to his theatre when the air raid sirens started, and shun the Odeon and the Gaumont, because if they were going to be obliterated by the Nazis, they wanted to go out in style!
It's difficult to know if the Granada survey responses were typical of British cinemagoers of the time or just of Sidney Bernstein's customers (his was the only chain that did these 10-yearly surveys), but if they are representative, they certainly give the impression that in the pre-TV days, cinema was primarily about the social experience (just as very few people would choose what pub they went to now purely on account of what beers it served), but that it then became a lot more about content.
quote: Scott Jentsch
My brother's truck is on its last legs, and has been for several years now. Through an unwillingness to spend the money to get a new(er) vehicle, he's poured a lot of his time and money into keeping that thing running. It should be taken out back and shot, but he continues to deny the inevitable and he's fully aware of it.
I know the feeling, having ended up in a similar place with the infamous '99 Civic. Spent most of Sunday teaching myself how to replace wheel bearings, and it'll be the timing belt in the summer... And it's been in the family since new, so there's now an emotional dimension to this. Why I'm not feeling that emotional dimension so much with film I'm not sure.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-23-2014 12:33 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Yeah, great big fantasies, but what self respecting director would be aiming at a direct-to-rental release?
None of them do. They want to have at least some kind of audience. A movie production wouldn't have much of that going from the camera straight to the video store shelf or placed among all the other movie image thumbnails on Netflix.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Here's a few off the top of my head:
• Steven Soderbergh - directed "Behind the Candelabra" which won 2 Golden Globes
• Billy Bob Thornton - Fargo is going direct to TV
• David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
Martin Scorcese, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg have all been quoted in the last year or so as saying that the landscape of making and watching movies is changing. An entire generation is growing up watching and enjoying movies on their phones, tablets, and laptops. For that group, a 55" TV is a big screen!
Behind the Candelabra was a movie made for HBO. It didn't go direct to video rental. Nearly 30 million Americans subscribe to HBO. The premium network has aired Behind the Candelabra many times. It was on one of the HBO channels last night. I can't think of any movies that have won awards like Oscars or Golden Globes without playing in movie theaters and/or on a major TV network. Direct to disc shows don't generate that kind of attention.
Regarding a remake of Fargo, I just have one thing to ask: why? By the way, the movie isn't going direct to video rental; it is getting aired by a TV network. If the movie is released on disc I'll bet the sales of it aren't too good.
I agree with the notion that certain TV shows have become more interesting than theatrical movies. But I don't agree with David Lynch's assertion that the art house has gone to cable. TV doesn't offer more outlets for movies play it actually has less.
It seems to me some of the guys in Hollywood think they'll make just as much money or even more by cutting out the theatrical release. That's the part I say is pure fantasy. There's no way they can do that.
There are only so many TV networks, particularly if you cancel out all the TV networks who don't even bother showing dramatic movies or mini-series. So many networks are consumed with showing non-stop marathons of various "reality TV" shows. There's only a few premium networks, such as HBO, that show un-cut movies. And then there's only a few cable TV networks that allow some boundaries to be pushed with their original series. All of these networks are pretty big on airing repeat showings of a limited number of TV series and movies. Cable subscribers are going to pay for only so many premium networks. That compartmentalizes a great deal of the viewing audience. Various programming tiers limit the number of non-premium networks to many subscribers. That compartmentalizes even more of the viewing audience. Add in rising prices and more people opting to "cut the cord" and TV doesn't look like such a great bastion for Hollywood studio movie content.
Movie viewing habits may change over the next decade, perhaps in radical ways. But if the commercial movie theater is eliminated the movie industry as we know it will be eliminated. You won't have any 2 hour movies with $200 million production budgets or actors getting paid $20 million to star if the movie is only going to air on a TV network and/or go straight into Netflix' pool of rental titles. If a movie is made to premiere on a TV network there is no need for it to be cropped to 'scope aspect ratio. Everything will be 16x9 full frame HD.
The movie industry and movie theater industry both act like it's impossible for them to fail.
quote: Scott Jentsch
This past weekend, the #1 movie (Ride Along) had an audience that was 54% over the age of 25. 85% of the audience for Jack Ryan over the age of 25. Lone Survivor was #1 last weekend, but 57% were 30 years of age or older. Wolf of Wall Street was 90% in the 25+ age group.
Don't you think price has something to do with those demographic numbers? The prices for tickets and snack counter items is getting pretty damned high for teens and young adults to afford, especially when you throw in the surcharges for 3D, premium big screens, etc. They're not making as much money as those in the older age ranges. Hell, I'm in a more affluent demographic and I see little if anything currently in release that I want to see in a theater. It could be May before I buy my next movie ticket.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-23-2014 02:13 PM
There's a lot of griping about the quality of movies but if you look at the critics' "ten best" lists, you'll find many of them saying that 2013 was a GREAT year for movies. The biggest problem is, most of the "great" movies don't do much business. The big dollars are made by the crappy sequels and comic book superhero action-fests, so that's what gets made.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The prices for tickets and snack counter items is getting pretty damned high for teens and young adults to afford, especially when you throw in the surcharges for 3D, premium big screens, etc.
I don't think most people would have a problem paying more for a better experience. When they see 3D, or a giant "XD" or whatever screen, they can see extra value for their dollar. I think where people REALLY feel ripped-off is the concession stand, where they are paying $5 or more for a soda they could get for 99¢ at a convenience store, or $9 or more for a popcorn. Adding to the problem, a "small" soda at some places is 32 ounces which is ridiculous. Then the cinema staff tries to "give the customer more value" by putting three ice cubes and filling the cup with soda, which will be warm before the end of the trailers.
Putting more sensible value into the concession area, rather than raping people with outrageous prices, would pay big dividends.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 01-23-2014 03:05 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Billy Bob Thornton - Fargo is going direct to TV
Poor Billy Bob Thornton, let us not forget that once he made it with Sling Blade, he then signed on to a bunch of movies such as Primary Colors, Pushing Tin, A Simple Plan, Armageddon, Intolerable Cruelty, and Bandits all of these movies were higher than normal budgets and some with some pretty big stars.
It was sad to see him in the movie Faster with The Rock and Mr Woodcock was a big mistake. Today, he is now just a forgotten actor who was pretty good during the 90s. So good riddance and move on to TV.
quote: Scott Jentsch
David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
David Lynch, like Thornton and many others need to realize that perhaps their time making movies is done. Again, move on to TV.
quote:
It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
Really, I enjoyed Mud, The Intouchables, Amour, Warm Bodies, Blue Jasmine, Philomena, Perks of a Wallflower, and my favorite of 2013 was The Way Way Back which was made for $5 million and grossed $22 million and played for 16 weeks straight as the only movie at a local art-house when released. These are all examples of small art house type films that are good and can make money. I saw all of these in theatres.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Henk
Master Film Handler
Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-23-2014 04:29 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Yeah, great big fantasies, but what self respecting director would be aiming at a direct-to-rental release?
Help me out here. Yes, successful directors have power. I understand that. But how much, really? Enough to dictate to the studios on this issue? Long term? Really? Especially at this stage? I think not even a snowball's chance in Hell. In fact, I expect it to accelerate right away, across the board.
I really can't see the studio heads ultimately thinking of even the directors as any more than spoiled employees with tempers, to be humored and ignored. They might cave on one-offs once in a great while, but this thread is about the studios stopping making 35mm prints. And I just don't see even mass widespread lobbying as having a single speck of influence. I seem to recall a bunch of the top directors doing exactly that about five years (or so) ago. They were politely heard and ignored. May have delayed things a year or so as a PR thing.
"Art? How quaint." they would say. "No money there. Not in comparison to streaming. Historical libraries? Really? Haven't we dumped those boat anchors yet? Get on that, Phil. What's next? We've got to find a way to mandate the purchase of overpriced snacks from us, maybe as a bundle package as part of getting a movie from us. It can just increase the line item on their ISP bill. We'll start it off as an optional thing, then slide gently into making it the only way they can get the stream package. Ed, get on the spin for that. Gotta look like the public has been clamoring for it, and we're just delivering on their demands. We want to be ready. Gawd, I love management."
Sardonic? Yeah, of course it is. Sorry about that. But I think it's a very real evaluation of the decision makers' thought processes, and of many major strategy decisions that they made a long time ago. I think they'd just assume ultimately let all the major directors, producers, and all major talent walk, and start all over again, before they'd go back on these strategies. This is dogma to them.
I don't even think they'd lose much sleep over losing the majors. So to repeat the question, does anybody think that anybody has any clout with these guys?
Here endeth the rant.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic