Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-25-2011 06:43 AM

Just rememeber that Mysteries of Egypt and Everest both approx 40min imax films spent almost 6 months in the top 10 of boxoffice grosses in Variety

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-25-2011 07:16 AM

Gord- Not sure about you, but I think the era of 15/70 films taking a long while to gross high numbers is done. Do you know if they are changing the screen size with the new digital projector install at the Cinesphere?

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-25-2011 08:27 AM

Tom - Do you work?

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-25-2011 08:37 AM

quote: Manny Knowles
Tom - Do you work?

I have three jobs actually

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-25-2011 08:43 AM

I dont know about you either
both films stayed for 6 months in the top box office weekly gross

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-25-2011 08:47 AM

Gord- Do you know about screen size at the Cinesphere? Will it be smaller with the new projector?

quote: Gordon McLeod
6 months in the top box office weekly gross

You mean average gross per theatre?

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-28-2011 11:29 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"?

If I were to walk into an auditorium and the screen was that small, the room better be sized to match, or I'd be walking out and demanding my money back!

At 14' wide, you'd have to sit no further than 23-35' away before the viewing angle would be way too small.

Was this a screening room of some sort?

I've attended movies with screens as small as 24' with a room that was probably only 28' wide by 60' deep, but that even felt too small for comfort. This was exacerbated by the fact that it was an iPic location where they had large seats and widely spaced rows. The screen was mounted in such a way that one row was too low in respect to the screen, while the next row back was too far away for comfort.

14' is way too close to home theater width for me to pay movie theater prices for. I think there is a market for smaller auditoriums that are better equipped, but that's just too small...

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-28-2011 01:18 PM

Scott- The theatre I am referring to is the Upper Canada Place Mall theatre in Burlington Ontario. It was among one of the very first Garth Drabinsky, Cineplex Odeon Cinemas back in the day. The screens and rooms are very small, I mean no bigger than living room at home. All theatres are mono sound but the surround speakers are up on the wall in theatres 1 and 2 for the look (they are not operational)

Here is the seat count:

Cinema 1 88 seats
Cinema 2 98 seats
Cinema 3 72 seats
Cinema 4 55 seats
Cinema 5 55 seats
Cinema 6 55 seats

It should be clear, the movies shown here are show on decades old equipment, complete with mono sound and a nice hissing sound coming from the speaker. The movies are second run features and this is not a state of the art screening room.

This theatre has a loyal following.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 01-28-2011 03:17 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
Gord- Not sure about you, but I think the era of 15/70 films taking a long while to gross high numbers is done.

Well I'm not Gord but those particular films did not take time to get into the top 10! I personally remember running "Everest" to a over 550 people (full house) every hour on the hour, all weekend for many weeks! Only the first and last sesion per day were not full (weekend sessions), 12 sesions per day. monday to friday school bookings/ nights were also busy. Serious cash flow [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-28-2011 03:29 PM

Camereon-What I mean, with very few screens showing a 15/70 print, it will take a very long time to gross high numbers.

The averages will be very high for a 15/70 movie showing on so few screens that of course it will stay in the top 10 of average for a long time.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 01-28-2011 09:03 PM

Hey Tom

Check out boxoffice mojo 1998

In its year of release Everest was only on 62 large format screens in the US but came in 22 in the yearly total with $87,000,000 in total. Sure Saving Private Ryan was no 1 on 2800 cinema screens made more at $220,000,000.

Yep the b.o per screen average is higher with Everest. The total figure though is impressive and really has alot to do with the number of sesions you can have with a 45 minute film.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-30-2011 01:34 AM

quote:
[sleep] [sleep] [sleep] [sleep] [Roll Eyes]

Hey Tony!

Are you stll sleeping?

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-31-2011 10:16 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
The theatre I am referring to is the Upper Canada Place Mall theatre in Burlington Ontario. It was among one of the very first Garth Drabinsky, Cineplex Odeon Cinemas back in the day. The screens and rooms are very small, I mean no bigger than living room at home. All theatres are mono sound but the surround speakers are up on the wall in theatres 1 and 2 for the look (they are not operational)

Tom,

Perhaps there is something to these theaters that warrant the following you say they have, but I stand by my comment that I'd walk out and demand my money back. I can't remember ever going to a movie theater and seeing a movie on a screen smaller than 20' wide.

Don't get me wrong, I think smaller can be better, but there is a limit. I like the idea of a small sub-100 person room, but the viewing angles must still be decent. How close are the seats to the screen?

It's one thing to show old movies in mono, but even the most talkative of contemporary romantic comedies still puts some effort into a sound mix that can make use of more than one channel of sound. Seeing Casablanca in such an environment may be quaint and appealing in its own right, but if I'm paying money for a movie that has more than one channel of sound, the theater better be delivering it.

Additionally, the tradeoff for the smaller environment would have to then be in the performance of the presentation. Put me in a 88-seat house with good viewing angles, nice apppointments (decent seats, some care taken with the design of the room, curtains would be nice), and excellent picture and sound, and I'll pay $20 per ticket with no hesitation whatsoever.

What you describe wouldn't be worth my time, much less my money. Maybe I'm missing something about what these theaters are offering?

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-31-2011 11:29 AM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
In its year of release Everest was only on 62 large format screens in the US but came in 22 in the yearly total with $87,000,000 in total.

That appears to be a deceptive claim. The best I can tell, Everest's $87 million gross was achieved over a span of several years. For legacy/historical lists, it is common for a film's total gross to be retroactively assigned to the year of initial release. That is typically what happens with successful films released in the latter months of a given year and films with specialized, longterm distribution/exhibition (such as IMAX or roadshows).

As an example, if you ask me what the top-grossing film of 1984 was, I'd consider it Ghost Busters, and trade reports published in December '84 and January '85 echo this. But if you look at any legacy list, you'll see Beverly Hills Cop in the top spot. (Beverly Hills Cop was released in December '84 and made most of its money during the 1985 calendar year, whereas Ghost Busters was released in June and made 99% of its money during '84.)

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-31-2011 01:12 PM

quote: Scott Jentsch
I can't remember ever going to a movie theater and seeing a movie on a screen smaller than 20' wide.

Come to think of it, the some of the screens might even be under 10 feet in width.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Maybe I'm missing something about what these theaters are offering?

I guess you would have to see it or go to appreciate it. Like I said it was one of the very first Cineplex Odeon Cinemas. It really is a nice intimate environment, tiny lobby, long hallway.

The theatre has a loyal following. The theatre play second run kids and hollywood fare. This is no art house.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.