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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » vaguely threatening letter from 20th Century Fox (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: vaguely threatening letter from 20th Century Fox Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-11-2011 01:47 PM                    quote: ...the costs of maintaining a dual inventory including 35mm prints is not sustainable... I'm sorry. How does this make sense? How much money has been saved by sending HALF of your prints as 2 lb hard drives instead of 45 lb prints all over the country? How many Fed Ex planes have been parked due to half of the prints not being shipped anymore? How much warehouse space isn't needed anymore? I'm sorry, but this statement just doesn't make any sense at all.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-11-2011 01:58 PM                     Lower print quantities means higher cost per print. Similar things with other aspects of 35mm distribution. At some point, 35mm distribution cost will be higher than the savings from digital. Especially since digital has not gotten to the point of optimal cost savings but is in an intermediate state. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-11-2011 04:04 PM                     That may be true re. print cost v. quantity (although it would be good to have some reliable, up-to-the-minute data on print costs), but even if so, consider this in the context of the lower volumes being printed: 50,000 no. prints at $700 each will cost $ 35 million, but 20,000 no. prints at $1000 each will cost $ 20 million, which represents a 43% saving in print costs even though the price per print has increased by 43%. A hypothetical example to be sure, but perhaps worth considering.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-11-2011 04:08 PM                     What Justin said. The rest of you are a bunch of cry babies. Now go protest with the 99%!!  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-11-2011 04:14 PM                        Brian, that may well be true. However, it is very easy to track the gross to the specific print. And with most of the major theatres having converted to digital, the question becomes whether the remaining 35mm locations generate enough gross to pay for the print they use. They might for major tent poles, but for your average release, they might not (especially when you consider the studio only gets 50-60% of the gross). If you're an accountant, how do you justify spending $1500 for a print that might only generate $3000 of gross (or a little over $1500 payment to studio)? While it may only be about 55-60% of screens that are digital at this point, I venture to say they account for something like 75-80% of the gross.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-11-2011 05:08 PM                     Interesting point Justin, although I'm not sure if it invalidates my point about total overall savings, in the scenario I posited (which is obviously open to argument). And is totally eliminating revenue from a residual 35mm market - even if reduced per screen due to higher print costs - really a sensible idea? (BTW - is there any hard evidence that print costs have actually increased?)  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-11-2011 05:15 PM                     It's probably based on the assumption that those cinemas that do not convert are probably those who can not afford it and get no VPF deals. These will also be considered the ones with the smallest revenue. Now at some point distributors need to decide wether they want to support some 50 or 100 screens with their complete 35mm distribution chain. I don't think it's 50.000 vs. 20.000 It's, of course also to put some pressure on those that are still hesitating to convert. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-11-2011 06:00 PM                       There's another whole way to look at this. The studios always want to play every town and fight each other for the best screen in a zone. It does not mean they actually make real cash money on these small town screens. Part of the reason they play the small towns is is for the more or less free blanket advertising platform for that title and other upcoming titles. When you look at it this way the print cost does not matter so much, if indeed it ever did. So please let's not get into feeling sorry for the studio having to supply a 35mm print. The letter is just a statement saying we are going to do this because we can. Same as B of A saying we're raising this fee or that fee because we decided it would make us more money. Funny, the Wall Street protests, messy as they are, forced B of A to retreat. What does that tell us?  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-11-2011 06:09 PM                        Seriously, what percentage of a $250million budget is the cost of prints? And who do they charge it to, anyway? Drop that to 250-500 prints, about that of a big indie release, and the print costs is probably equal to one week's lunch budget. Hollywood bookkeeping is Hollywood bookkeeping. Never believe anything they are saying when it comes to money. As Justin said earlier, it is capitalism at work. There job is to make as much money as they can while spending as little as they can. They are doing it because they can. Criticize them or don't, but there is no reason to feel sorry for them.  |  IP: Logged Melanie Loggins Expert Film Handler Posts: 154 From: Wayne, NE, USA Registered: Aug 2011 posted 11-11-2011 07:54 PM                        quote: Sam D. Chavez Same as B of A saying we're raising this fee or that fee because we decided it would make us more money Oh man. This is brilliant. I wish I had thought of it! Attention customers: we're going to double all of our prices because we decided it would make us more money! Yep. I think this will work out nicely.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-11-2011 08:22 PM                     quote: Brian Guckian that print costs have actually increased ...cost of price increase due to that polyester comes from oil, and that aint cheap anymore.. The economy still hasn't settled down, wages up to $7.25 didn't help either, last year's 5% loss in nationwide attendance was not at all fun to handle, esp with big box companies who have investors to please, and you show them a 5% loss, grumpiness ensues badly. Sorry, going digital had to happen and plan on the 3D gimmick to stay around for quite the time for digital alone isn't bringing any more ticket sales. Plus, it had to make it easier on the owners. We employees are going to have to buck it up, or hit the road for greener pastures.  |  IP: Logged David M. Leugers Film Handler Posts: 43 From: Fairfield, Ohio, united States of America Registered: Jan 2005 posted 11-11-2011 09:11 PM                     quote: Martin McCaffery was the last to post Capitalism at work Uh, more like corporatism at work. Big difference. I would love it if all the independent theaters would get together in a class action suit against the distributors. Strange that customers (theaters) being strong armed into making large capital investments in order for corporations to make larger profits. For theaters this in an unconscionable bargain. There is no consideration for the theater owners in the contract offer from Fox except for some reduction in the amount of money the theaters are being skimmed for. Some bargain.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-11-2011 09:42 PM                        quote: David M. Leugers Uh, more like corporatism at work. Big difference. Let's call it corporate capitalism.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-11-2011 10:02 PM                        quote: David M. Leugers I would love it if all the independent theaters would get together in a class action suit against the distributors. What would be the grounds for such a lawsuit. Theatres have a choice about making the investment in digital. They are not being forced to do so. Yes, the choice is convert or go out of buisness, but it's still a choice. And there is no legal requirement for the studios to offer product in any specific format. The only potential issue I could see is an anti-trust issue like collusion. But since everyone has known digital was coming and because theatres people as well as the studios were involved with the DCI, that might be difficult to prove. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't pretend to be an authority on these issues. I just don't see any legal ground for a lawsuit.  |  IP: Logged David M. Leugers Film Handler Posts: 43 From: Fairfield, Ohio, united States of America Registered: Jan 2005 posted 11-12-2011 12:07 AM                     Yeah, knowing what I do about our judicial system, there would be slim hope for a win in a lawsuit. Still, the issue should be raised. Just what exactly is the product that the distributors are selling or providing to theaters? It is sorta like you go out and invest in a car dealership. You have expectations of what that entails and what the car manufacturer will provide to you. Then you find out that the car manufacturer says that they are coming out with a radical new model and that if you want to sell it, you have to pay for the new dies and assembly robots. If not, you can go out of business because they will not be providing the usual cars any longer... this is so the car manufacturer can cut overhead and make a bigger profit. Your customers will get less car for more money and you will not make any additional money for selling the new model... Maybe it will be better just to go out of business, which is what I expect the small single screen theaters that are still around will do.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.