|
|
 
|
|
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 01-23-2014 10:48 PM
Audiences are the only ones with enough clout to make a studio executive's head roll, but only if they can wake up enough to do it. For now audiences seem happy being spoon fed the same old thing.
An aging director with a proven track record of many hits and/or critical acclaim (guys along the lines of Spielberg or Scorsese) may have clout (these guys know a lot of key people). Studio executives do have to take directors in that level seriously.
But ultimately, if a respected filmmaker takes a stand and says, "screw you studio guys, I'm taking my ball and going home," the studio guys will respond, "well go then."
An acclaimed director worthy of a high price tag can be replaced by a countless number of age 20-something guns for hire willing to shoot a movie on anything from an Red Epic outfitted with custom made Zeiss lenses to a freaking iPhone or GoPro Hero camera.
The movie industry is a very youth-oriented industry. It's not only a crime to get old in front of a camera, it's just as bad to get old behind the camera. Studio executives and the suits at the parent media companies like to go with that youth trend rather than that of experience. The young people are more plugged into the trends of popular culture and can make our product more hip and relevant. Plus they can be hired for a lot less money and fired at the bat of an eyelash.
A respected filmmaker is put into something of a disadvantage in the face of that.
The whole situation could change if the movie-going public starts paying closer attention to just what they're being sold from the studios. I think if the prices get high enough they'll certainly do that. Other industries, namely the consumer electronics industry, could bring increasing attention to the vanishing differences between the movie-going experience and home theater experience. "Our home theater experience is just as good as the theatrical experience, plus it's a lot cheaper!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-24-2014 05:32 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
Cable has a gazillion channels to fill with junk. And sorry, but this guy has lost not only me, but anybody I know, who once liked his movies. Yeah, sure, there are still a few masochists left that are able to watch Inland Empire from start to finish and still pretend to like it...
quote: Jim Henk
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.
You know what the interesting thing might be? By pushing hard for an all-digital distribution, those same studios might inadvertently have opened the floodgates. It might still take a while for that flood to arrive, but in the days of 35mm, the studios had some kind of exclusivity. They controlled most of the infrastructure necessary for a world wide release. With digital, anybody can produce a DCP, put it on a bunch of rather inexpensive disks and ship those around the globe. In the near future, those same DCPs will also be almost exclusively distributed digitally, lowering the bar even further.
quote: Jim Henk
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?
Most of those majors aren't strapped for cash, they usually also know a lot of influential people in and around the business. If they need money to finance a production and the studios don't want to, they might as well find one or multiple investors to get the project done, some of those majors might even want to put some of their own cash on the line, it happened before and not just once... Also, sound stages can be rented outside of Hollywood, equipment can be rented and there are many special effect shops just begging for projects.
In the days of 35mm and DVDs, you needed the necessary infrastructure to get your movie into theaters and later to get it into widespread rental and sales distribution, that's why you needed studios to get your movie in front of an audience.
Nowadays, even getting your movie in online streaming services is a no-brainer. If you still want to distribute it via DVD and Blu-Ray, there are ways to achieve that too, without any studio being involved.
Heck, it might not be the success they initially counted on, but in 1994 a bunch of those majors created a new (formerly) independent studio: Dreamworks SKG and there was no real form of alternate distribution yet. They might try again and now it might just work.
quote: Mike Blakesley
And a lot smaller. The one difference they CAN NOT get rid of. That's what we need to promote.
You can also put your iPad in your face of course ![[Wink]](wink.gif) . But right, most movies are still being shot for the BIG screen. For example, having seen the Blu-Ray of Gravity on a regularly sized TV just reminded me of what I'm missing. If I would've seen this movie the first time that way, I would have told myself: yeah, nice movie... next! The cinema experience is on a whole other level.
Going to the cinema needs to be an event, a night out at the movies. That was and remains important. Obviously, the content plays a huge part in it, but the venue itself too. And that's why some crappy sub-par multiplex shit won't cut it in the future.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 01-24-2014 08:14 AM
One of the biggest arguments I keep seeing pop up about digital projection is that it blurs the line between home entertainment and cinema. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know a whole lot of people who have 1200+ square foot rooms with 480+ square foot screens devoted exclusively to motion picture entertainment in their homes capable of projecting 4k resolution footage and reproducing sound through six to sixty four channels.
I also don't see a lot of people making a very basic point about going out to the movies in the first place. It's going out. Getting out of the house. It's why we go out to dinner from time to time when we're perfectly capable of making most of the same dishes at home, or go to live concerts to see bands perform songs we already own and have heard a hundred times.
It's that shared experience with friends and total strangers.
I love watching Vertigo and Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Bull Durham at home, alone or with my wife and/or with friends. But these movies, and many others, are more enjoyable on a bigger screen, in a movie theatre, in a comfortable movie theatre seat, with my freshly popped popcorn and refreshing cold soda and yummy candy. Sure, I can pop some Orville Redenbacher at home in my microwave, but it doesn't taste as good as the popcorn at most theatres. And sure, I can pour my Coca-Cola from a can or plastic bottle, but it doesn't taste as good as a freshly poured soda from a (hopefully) properly brixed soda fountain dispenser that hasn't been sitting in a can or plastic bottle for weeks or months. And yeah, the $1.59 box of Sweetarts I get at CVS would probably taste exactly the same as the $3.75 one I get at the stand. I'll give you that one.
But frankly, I've been in some pretty spectacular private screening rooms in some pretty spectacular homes in and around Los Angeles over the years, but Joe and Jane Moviegoer do not have the setups Academy Award winning-screenwriters and directors have in their homes. Which is why, despite the advances home video entertainment has made in the past fifteen years and the sheer numbers of ways we can now consume content that didn't exist even a decade ago, attendance at movie theatres in the United States and Canada have maintained a steady balance, while worldwide attendance continues to grow.
People still like to get out of the house from time to time and experience something that cannot possibly recreate fully or accurately in their own home.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-24-2014 02:50 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
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.
I equate all the forms of home video, whether it be cable, premium cable (HBO, etc.), DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, etc. It's all intended to be consumed in the home. As of Dec 31st, Netflix had 33.4 million streaming customers in the U.S. with an additional 2.25M in Q1-2014. Their disc-by-mail business is still 6.9M (which is decreasing). Amazon doesn't post their numbers for streaming, but I saw an estimate of 20M subs for Prime Instant Video (which is a subset of their streaming business, but probably a large percentage).
Add in all the various ways that consumers can watch movies in their homes, and the alternate distribution channel for movies straight to home is sizeable, already in place, and not dependent upon any single vendor. I'm not saying it's the best way to watch a movie, but it's there, and with the up and coming generations of consumers, there's little if any resistance to watching movies that way.
quote: Bobby Henderson
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.
Getting rid of $200M production budgets and $20M actor salaries may be an adjustment that is sorely needed. Time and time again, we are shown how ingenuity can beat money. As long as there are people that want to watch movies, there will be a market for people to make movies. It may be completely different from what has come before, but it will be there. Whether movie theaters will be involved is up for debate and probably will be for a long time.
While I'm a big fan of watching widescreen movies, I'm confident that cinematography will adjust to whatever medium is prevalent. Movie theaters are seemingly shifting to common-width 1.85:1 screens on new installs, so we may see this aspect ratio be used more and more regardless of any major change in the theatrical vs. home video market ratio.
quote: Bobby Henderson
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.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was a major factor involved in the decision for a young person about where/when/how to watch a movie. Convenience is another. I'm sure that there are many more.
No matter what the economy does short of a full depression, there will always be people with disposable income. It's how they spend that disposable income, and whether theaters will get a share and how much, that is in play.
Playing film vs. digital cinema should really be way down on the list of concerns for a movie theater. Sure, there is a capital investment involved, and that can be a huge issue for some operations, but that's the reality. If you want to show new releases, you have to have the equipment to do so. There are ways to recoup those costs, but it's going to take ingenuity, drive, determination, and a lot of effort to do so in some cases.
Complaining about digital cinema and the death of film is like complaining about the weather. We can't do a thing about it. The wind is blowing, and all that can be done is to adjust our sails.
I hope that the theatrical exhibition industry thrives and only gets better. My chosen profession depends heavily upon it, but I am also a huge movie fan that really enjoys seeing good presentations and having a good moviegoing experience. Theaters need to concentrate on that, which is something they have complete control over. I totally believe that a theater that can deliver a great experience can succeed!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Henk
Master Film Handler
Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-24-2014 04:35 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Playing film vs. digital cinema should really be way down on the list of concerns for a movie theater. Sure, there is a capital investment involved, and that can be a huge issue for some operations, but that's the reality. If you want to show new releases, you have to have the equipment to do so. There are ways to recoup those costs, but it's going to take ingenuity, drive, determination, and a lot of effort to do so in some cases.
Nope.
As the very rate of advances in technology accelerates, so the frequency and costs for running Digital will increase to theatre owners. The studios paid for the first round of these in the form of VPFs. They won't keep doing that. Transition made - damage done. Bridge crossed, and burned behind. Ticket revenues won't be enough to pay for it and make a profit, either.
Summary: (and I'm *so* bummed to have to be a prophet of doom) it's my assertion that there are not ways to recoup these costs. Keeping the theatre alive will require ever-increasing amounts of money for upstairs, and that money just won't be there. The chain owners (mostly) allowed and encouraged this to happen, and it will sink their own ship, and all hands aboard.
I pray to all the Deities that I'm wrong. I'd so love to be wrong on this. I'd publicly admit it, and scream from the housetops that I'm an idiot, (which I am, anyway...) and that I was wrong. But I really don't think so.
And now I think it's high-time that I shut up on this issue, and cease being a broken record.
So, how about them (insert the name of your favorite team here...)?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-24-2014 04:53 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You know what the interesting thing might be? By pushing hard for an all-digital distribution, those same studios might inadvertently have opened the floodgates. It might still take a while for that flood to arrive, but in the days of 35mm, the studios had some kind of exclusivity. They controlled most of the infrastructure necessary for a world wide release.
Even using video cameras it still costs a hell of a lot of money to make a money. This hipster notion that "digital" has democratized cinema is a lot of hooey.
My Canon 5D Mk II DSLR can produce great looking HD video. That camera has been used on a lot of TV and feature film projects. However, DSLR cameras and their still lenses in particular have some very serious limitations. I can't follow focus with a moving subject without the image growing or shrinking as I change focus. If I zoom, the zoom tracking isn't going to be absolutely straight. My zoom lenses maintain f/2.8 through the entire range so I don't have to worry about aperture ramping when changing zoom levels. Less expensive zooms go from f/3.5 to f/5.6. If you zoom with one of those lenses while recording video the imagery may get darker and the depth of field will change (along with all the previously mentioned problems). So even if you're shooting "digital," you gotta use really expensive cine lenses if you want your shots to look right. There's only so many places where you can rent cine lenses. All but the smallest cine primes are too damned expensive to buy.
One thing "digital" is changing: the international movie-making market. While the productions themselves can still be expensive as hell, the productions don't have to rely on a limited number of film labs to process footage, send back dailies, etc. Hollywood was a hell of a lot more conveniently located when all feature movies were still being shot of film. Today, being in Hollywood or even the United States isn't nearly so important. If you have the money, you can make a movie almost anywhere now. And you don't necessarily need the help from a major American movie distributor to do so.
The United States may lose its lead as the world's top movie-going market. Obviously China and India could, theoretically, challenge that lead due to their far greater population sizes. But neither country is nearly as affluent or has the personal freedoms we have here. Europe is another matter.
This makes me think of the mid 1960's when the American music industry was going through one of its downward swings with doo-wop content growing stale. It set the stage for the British Invasion.
American movie theaters show, almost exclusively, the biggest stuff output from Hollywood movie studios. They rarely ever get outside of that comfort zone. But, with the way Hollywood studios have been jerking around American movie theater chains, and with some chains like AMC now having foreign (Chinese) ownership, Hollywood could lose a big part of its dominion over American movie theaters.
quote: Edward Havens
One of the biggest arguments I keep seeing pop up about digital projection is that it blurs the line between home entertainment and cinema. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know a whole lot of people who have 1200+ square foot rooms with 480+ square foot screens devoted exclusively to motion picture entertainment in their homes capable of projecting 4k resolution footage and reproducing sound through six to sixty four channels.
Most movies are only 2K in native resolution. Running a 2K movie through a 4K projector doesn't make that movie 4K. And blowing up a 2K movie on a giant sized screen isn't necessarily a good thing either. It's a fixed pixel grid. The bigger you make it the less resolution you have. I've seen a lot of theaters tweaking the projectors a little out of focus to hide that pixel grid. So the movie ends up looking a little blurry and anything with type/graphics, such as the end credits, look like hell. If I watch the same movie months later on Blu-ray all of that stuff is nice and sharp.
Screen size is also relative to viewing distance. I find myself sitting farther back and up at many theaters just so the projected image can seem relatively sharp. Native 4K could alleviate some of those problems, but how often will management remember to adjust a deliberately blurred 2K image and dial in the focus better when they receive a real 4K movie?
Movie theaters can install next generation sound formats like Dolby Atmos and Auro 11.1 to outdo the lossless 5.1 and 7.1 audio available on Blu-ray. But Dolby Atmos is pretty expensive (especially if it's configured with enough amplifiers). Not every big movie release has an Atmos mix. Auro is cheaper but isn't nearly as good a sound format and has nowhere near as many movie titles as Atmos.
quote: Louis Bornwasser
What ARE these projector companies going to do later after the cinemas are equipped? They are going to supply equal or better equipment to consumers.
It's going to be tough for them to do that in regards to immersive sound, although Auro is promoting its concept for home theater and gaming. Dolby hasn't taken a consumer version of Atmos off the table, although I'm sure any home version of Atmos would be far less elaborate (and probably really just a 9.1 system with Atmos labeling).
The screen department is different. Plans are in the works to bring 4K content to Blu-ray. Current TV sets use the limited REC 709 color space. Manufacturers are moving towards REC 2020, which would allow color depths that match anything currently being done in D-cinema.
I'm all big on bit rates. Blu-ray traditionally has larger video bit rates than any other consumer HD video medium. But it's pretty small compared to a 200GB 2 hour JPEG2000 d-cinema file. But then lots of DCPs have file sizes of 100GB or barely over 50GB. And we've heard evidence of Blu-ray encodes being ported to DCP for repertory release.
All of this stuff is technical gobbledy-gook for most people. But with trips to the movie theater costing more, home theater geting ever more sophisticated and affordable there is some danger brewing for movie theaters. If the only difference the theater is offering is just bigger and not better at those rising prices the act of "just getting out of the house" will come into question. Going to dinner and a movie can become a financial hardship for a lot of people. Yeah, everyone wants to get out of the house and do something. But they don't automatically have to go to the movie theater to get out of the house. At rising costs they may choose either-or, either a steak at a sit down restaurant re-heated with an industrial microwave, or a 2K movie with no noticeably better sound/image quality than watching it at home on Blu-ray.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-25-2014 02:08 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
I equate all the forms of home video, whether it be cable, premium cable (HBO, etc.), DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, etc. It's all intended to be consumed in the home.
Those outlets may all be consumed in the home, but they are not the same. Premium cable networks, such as HBO, have a captive audience to the monthly tune of $12-$16 per month per subscriber. Networks like the FX Channel, AMC or TNT bring in a handsome amount of advertising dollars from commercials. Streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime might be in vogue with popular culture, but one could make the argument those places are where movies and TV shows go to die. The movies and TV shows are available "free" there after they've played out themselves on premium cable and commercial cable.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Add in all the various ways that consumers can watch movies in their homes, and the alternate distribution channel for movies straight to home is sizeable, already in place, and not dependent upon any single vendor. I'm not saying it's the best way to watch a movie, but it's there, and with the up and coming generations of consumers, there's little if any resistance to watching movies that way.
It still isn't bringing in enough money, much less have the growth potential, to make up for the loss of the commercial theatrical market.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Getting rid of $200M production budgets and $20M actor salaries may be an adjustment that is sorely needed. Time and time again, we are shown how ingenuity can beat money.
Low budget movies don't tend to bring in billion dollar worldwide grosses. I don't like it, but the big budget movies still remain the "tent poles" that keep the roofs maintained at the major Hollywood studios. In a TV-only movie distribution model there will be no big budget epic movies. It's just going to be TV for TV's sake with no separate movie industry remaining -at least not one that exists in the United States.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Complaining about digital cinema and the death of film is like complaining about the weather. We can't do a thing about it. The wind is blowing, and all that can be done is to adjust our sails.
The thing I'm complaining about is the power brokers who completely changed the fundamentals of the movie medium are being foolish enough to think that things are just going to magically go on the way they've gone for the past century when it's actually likely they've opened a Pandora's box that will never be shut. They've put a ball into play without having any idea how it is going to land.
quote: Scott Jentsch
While I'm a big fan of watching widescreen movies, I'm confident that cinematography will adjust to whatever medium is prevalent. Movie theaters are seemingly shifting to common-width 1.85:1 screens on new installs, so we may see this aspect ratio be used more and more regardless of any major change in the theatrical vs. home video market ratio.
I don't believe that at all. In a TV-only movie distribution model the only aspect ratio that will be permitted with new projects is 1.77:1. CinemaScope as we know it would be dead. Really, with "digital," it's kind of dead already.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I watched "Escape To Alcatraz" that way last night, but I'm sure there are probably lots of Prime members who only care about the two-day shipping and never watch any movies, especially if they already have Netflix or whatever.
The free 2-day shipping is the main thing that got me on the hook with Amazon Prime. But, I'm catching up on the Justified TV series and may finally start checking out Sons of Anarchy years after they aired.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-28-2014 01:45 PM
The number that I found for Prime Instant Video was most likely considering all Amazon Prime customers, but it wasn't spelled out. With Amazon withholding that information, it's anybody's guess.
I understand that the current home market is not at the same level as the theatrical market. However, the point I am trying to make is that the only thing keeping it from being more prevalent is the will of the studios. Between the premium cable networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.), PPV, direct VOD from satellite and cable providers, and the streaming/download providers such as Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, VUDU, et al., the infrastructure is in place.
All that's necessary to see a major shift in the marketplace is for the studios to release their product to that infrastructure simultaneously. A few have tried and been beaten back by the theater chains. A few have tried with some pretty high-priced "super-tickets" and it hasn't taken off. Below most people's radars, there are movies that are released simultaneously or first on home video and then in limited theaters, but because of their limited scope/appeal, few have heard of them. Shrinking release windows are the harbinger of this shift.
As I've said before in other threads, some day, the numbers will work out in favor of a studio trying a home release of a mainstream movie simultaneously or instead of a theatrical release. But that's a path I've already tread, so there's no use in belaboring the point.
Even if I'm wrong about a future shift to home video by the studios, it is still more important for theaters to concentrate on delivering an excellent presentation to the audiences they are currently serving. If I'm wrong, the theaters will enjoy an unlimited future of movie-hungry audiences that will choose them over their competitors. If I'm right, they will have done everything they could, and by providing the best possible service to their customers, they stand the best chance of being open and making money longer than those who don't. Even if I'm right, I don't see the shift being immediate, so there will be lots of years to enjoy all that revenue.
The shift away from film was a necessary shift to save the theatrical exhibition industry from extinction. I feel sorry for the theaters that can't make the transition but can't because their markets are too small or those running the theater as a hobby can't make the investment. I don't feel sorry for those operations which are in it just to milk whatever they can while delivering a substandard experience because they don't want to invest in what it takes to run a quality operation. Good riddance to them!
If the (post-VPF) equipment replacement cycle is too frequent and costly given current business conditions, I would think that NATO's membership should be assembling itself to figure how to make the next round of investment possible.
What business models are required to sustain operation? What is the typical lifecycle of current equipment, and the projected costs of replacing that equipment? How much should a theater be saving each month to be ready?
These seem to me to be very important questions. Whether or not film will disappear and soon has already been asked and answered.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-28-2014 02:11 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
some day, the numbers will work out in favor of a studio trying a home release of a mainstream movie simultaneously or instead of a theatrical release.
If they want to know how a "blockbuster event" would perform without spending a ton of money, they could already try it out with a much-anticipated episode of some popular TV show. Let's say, "The Big Bang Theory." They could make a two-hour "very special season finale" episode, and have it be available ONLY via pay-per-view for, say, two months. They could price it at, say, $10. Then put it on free cable later.
Don't even think about the fact that $10 is far less money than would be made on, say, half a dozen movie tickets. But that's the price point most TV viewers would probably pay.
When the audience for that show numbers in the low tens of thousands, vs. millions who would have watched it for free, that should show them the value of the theatrical market.
The fact is very simple: People don't want to pay a lot extra for stuff on TV. Some people have no problem with 99 cents or $1.99, and there are a few who don't give a hoot and will pay anything to see what they want; but the vast, vast majority won't like to pay over-and-above their monthly cable/satellite bill. So if a studio mostly just has that cable/satellite revenue to draw from, there's not NEAR enough money for all the studios to still make movies and make money too.
The movie audience is WILLING to spend that extra money to see a movie in a theater. Those same people might not be so willing to pay extra to see the same content in the "same four walls" they spend their lives in, especially if they have a plain old TV like the majority of people do.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Putlack
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 187
From: Fort Collins, Colorado
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 01-28-2014 06:00 PM
Stop the presses! Film is already making a comeback at Paramount!
via LA Times
quote:
Paramount Pictures to make some exceptions to all-digital policy
By Richard Verrier
January 28, 2014, 10:43 a.m.
Paramount Pictures reiterated to exhibitors this week its plans to embrace the digital format, but added that it would make exceptions for some movies.
"In keeping with the digital direction of the studio's exhibition partners, we have moved forward with the conversion to primarily digital projection," Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, wrote in a letter to exhibitors on Monday. "This resolve follows the successful release of Martin Scorsese's Academy Award-nominated film 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' and it is the first Paramount feature to be released nationwide entirely in digital."
Moore added: "Although we anticipate the majority of the studio's future releases to be executed in digital formats across the U.S., select exceptions will be made."
Among the exceptions will be Christopher Nolan's science fiction movie "Interstellar," which will be released in both film and digital formats when it opens nationwide Nov. 7, Moore wrote.
With the release of "The Wolf of Wall Street" last month, Paramount became the first major studio in Hollywood to distribute a wide-release movie entirely in a digital format.
The move is likely to encourage other studios to follow suit, accelerating a complete phase-out of film that could come by the end of the year.
Studios prefer digital distribution because it is much cheaper. Film prints cost as much as $2,000; a digital copy on disc usually costs less than $100. Eventually, these movies could be beamed into cinemas by satellite, saving even more on production and shipping costs.
Digital technology also enables theaters to screen higher-priced 3-D films and makes it easier for them to book and program entertainment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic