Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 12-23-2007 11:13 PM

Carmike IS playing it here.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 12-24-2007 05:11 PM

You know if everyone would only open on one screen and not be playing 2 to 6 prints of the same movie it would help as well. It would slow down the process and the theaters would have some leverage then but each chain in a city is worried about not having enough of the take on any individual film the end result is there are few films that ever sell out on any one show and often hit movies have half the showings with hardly anyone in the theater!

If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

When did this all get so out of hand? I can remember when movies did well for several years not a few weeks! Okay, yes I am old now but at over 30 years in this I cannot believe how screwed the theater operator has allowed himself to become!

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 12-24-2007 07:24 PM

quote:
If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

The original idea of the multiplex was to have multiple movies. The idea of the megaplex is (theoretically) to run more efficiently by spreading the customers out over multiple show times. For example, lets say an 8-plex had a 500 seat auditorium which sold out for (to use a current example) Alvin and the Chipmonks with one print. The theater would have to be staffed to handle 500 people entering in about 20 minutes. Now upgrade to a megaplex and instead of 1 print in a 500 seat auditorium they have 2 prints in 299 seat (to avoid needing multiple ADA areas) auditoriums with shows spaced 45 minutes apart. Neither will sell out but now you only need the staff to handle 250 people in a 20 minute span because you will have 2 shows.

Theoretically it works because that extra staff would be waiting around until the next rush. Of course the payroll savings has to be weighed against the additional overhead. Two 299 seat auditoriums (or even 250 seats) will take more square footage than one 500 seat auditorium. Also, you have to purchase 2 projectors, 2 sound racks, 2 sets of speakers etc. If you notice, a 14 plex built today doesn't have many more total seats than an 8-plex of the early 90's.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 12-24-2007 07:50 PM

So it is better to burn the film out with 70% going to the film company and the movie dead when it hits 60% the next week! Why yes if I'm the film company that makes perfect sense, however, I'm not the film company and payroll savings at the expense of box office split going to the film company is no savings it is the operator cutting his own throat, then complaining that he is bleeding!

What you say works in theory but you don't really have work in practice.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 12-24-2007 09:17 PM

I don't think that the "frontloaded" nature of most films is really all to blame on the megaplex explosion. Major releases are playing in many more LOCATIONS now than they used to. Jurrasic Park opened in less than 3000 theaters where this year a film like that will open in over 4000 theaters.

Although films seem to fall off more quickly now and you would think it would have a drastic effect on film cost, the film cost percentage over a year in a multiplex hasn't changed much at all from the early 90's.

| IP: Logged

Brad Allen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 688
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 12-26-2007 12:02 AM

quote:
You know if everyone would only open on one screen and not be playing 2 to 6 prints of the same movie it would help as well. It would slow down the process and the theaters would have some leverage then but each chain in a city is worried about not having enough of the take on any individual film the end result is there are few films that ever sell out on any one show and often hit movies have half the showings with hardly anyone in the theater!

If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

When did this all get so out of hand? I can remember when movies did well for several years not a few weeks! Okay, yes I am old now but at over 30 years in this I cannot believe how screwed the theater operator has allowed himself to become!

I agree, "selling out" is good PR via word of mouth. Multiple prints of the same film is counterproductive in my opinion.

| IP: Logged

Mike Sellars
Film Handler

Posts: 34
From: Robertsdale, AL., USA
Registered: Oct 2006

posted 12-28-2007 05:57 PM

I have never understood why we all (studios and exhibitors) refuse to understand that, in truth, our relationship is symbiotic... not parasitic. If we didn't play their films, they wouldn't get shown - if they didn't make the films, we would have nothing to play, and that would be it.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-28-2007 06:48 PM

Mike, I would say that used to be 100% true some years ago, but more and more the theatrical release is only one of the avenues where the studio can sell its product. Now granted, it is still the most significant avenue, but not the only one. And just the same as the whole distribution system and even the culture around distribution has significantly changed over the year, it may still evolve with each coming generation. Right now, for the most part, all the other media thru which the studios can get their product to the public pretty much rely on the success and excitement generated by the theatrical run. The demand for a title starts with theatrical -- lucky for exhibition. But that may change as each new generation seeking their entertainment become comfortable with seeing movies in very different formats other than movie theatres.

There very well could come a time when a three million ad campaign can generate all the excitement necessary for a film to be in demand via non-cinema outlet -- pay-per-view, piped into home theatres via fiberoptics, DVDs, freakin iPods, etc. Right now that is not viable, but it easily could be. Remember, studios at one time vowed on a stack of box office reports that they would never EVER release their classic films to television. Disney was one of the loudest, saying their classics like FANTASIA would NEVER be shown on TV. They actually considered TV as the enemy. Today Disney has been know to release titles direct to DVD. So much for studio vows.

The culture of studios and exhibition joined at the hip againt big bad TV has long morphed into something very different. TV, cable and home video may remain exhibition's nemisis, but they sure are not distribution's.

Studios no longer see their livelyhood directly tied solely to the rise and fall of exhibition. Years ago it was common practice that if a theatre was on the verge of going under, the studios would give them breaks on rental deals, sometimes selling titles flat, waiting to see if the theatre could get back up on its feet. Deals were routinely made based on a theatre's previous performance. Studios actually were proactive in keeping theatres afloat, the idea being, as you said, they only had theatrical exhibition as the outlet for their product.

Even in the non-theatrical 16mm market was viewed by the studios as very suspect; studios would always protect any theatre within driving distance of a non-theatrical screening. Disney, one of the staunchest supporters of this protectionist culture wouldn't even allow a non-theatrical venue to play their pictures on Saturdays as they saw that as competition with commercial theatres that ran Saturday kiddy shows. That kind of symbiotic, protectionist relationship has been long dimishing and evolving into something a lot less secure for exhibition. Can anyone say Day-and-Date...the next step?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 12-28-2007 08:54 PM

Most movies on the break here play for two weeks. For the past couple of years we have put the "dates" on the marquee of how long a movie will play. This dilutes people's notion that they MUST see the movie on opening weekend and spreads the crowds out nicely.

I think some people are afraid that a movie will ONLY play on that opening weekend, because the studios relentless pound the opening date in all the advertising. By putting our two-week span of dates on the marquee, we have seen a very noticeable spread-out of crowds. We hardly ever have to turn people away on opening night now -- the non-total fanatics and avid moviegoers know to wait a week or ten days.

Of course now the film companies are combating this by going to the aggregate film rental, but for those movies that are 70-50 or whatever, it's a help. In a large city situation, you could still do this -- you KNOW you'll be playing a film for a certain number of weeks for sure. Anything beyond that could be promoted as "Held over! 5th HUGE week!"

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 12-28-2007 10:11 PM

Actually Day and Date is already here HDNET Movies network airs many Magnolia release films either the day of open or with in a few days of open and when they do the DVD goes on sell before the picture is out of the theater.

To date they have not broken even on any of these pictures they are largely art house type of films but it is still a barringer of the future and not necessarily one I like. HDNet is owned by the owner of the Dallas Basketball team and I think he also has theaters (landmark comes to mind)I just don't what happens to theaters when a straight to DVD title does a $100,000 million in a month that could be the end!

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 12-28-2007 11:09 PM

What's a "barringer?"

It's notable that none of these 'day and date' movies have made any money. Why would anybody want to release a major movie that way? Theatrical release is the "stamp" that makes a movie feel like a movie - and not a glorified TV show or a shoddy straight-to-video release - when it comes out on disk.

Also I don't think any movie will ever do $100,000 million in a month no matter how it's released. That'd be like a hundred billion dollars. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

John McConnel
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 118
From: Okmulgee, OK USA
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 12-30-2007 09:47 PM

Translate "barringer" to "harbinger"

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-31-2007 06:15 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's notable that none of these 'day and date' movies have made any money. Why would anybody want to release a major movie that way? Theatrical release is the "stamp" that makes a movie feel like a movie - and not a glorified TV show or a shoddy straight-to-video release - when it comes out on disk.

Yah, to you and me and everyone who grew up with only theatres the only place to see movies. Yes, there were movies on TV but they were YEARS after the theatrical release. So for all intents and purposes, movies and theatres were synonomus. But that's old school. Technology has changed expectations in the culture. Today's kids are growing up with movies readily available in a multitude of formats and delivery systems and that will only grow in the future.

I believe people in the near future will not see the theatrical release as the god from which all grace flows. There is no reason why the next generations won't get the kind of excitement about a movie if its released on cable and DVD as we did from theatrical releases. After all, the studios publicity machine makes the MOVIE hot and desirable; it's not because LORD OF THE RINGS is playing in a theatre that it's hot; it's the MOVIE the public wants to see, and they will buy it from where ever the studio thinks they will make the most money. Today it's still the cinema; all I am saying is that may not always be the case.

The studios own the TV "entertainment" programs -- ET, Access Hollywood, The Insider, et al, and they have only one purpose: promote their own product; they are nothing but one big half-hour commercials for the studios. Same thing with the internet -- one huge promotion machine, and it reaches young people and they listen to it.

There will be a time when enough of the populous will clamor for their movie entertainment from where ever they can get it and it will no longer need to be made "legitimate" by a theatrical run. They will be perfectly happy if they can get their latest HARRY POTTER film day-and-date on DVD or piped directly to their PPV cable box at home. They will not dismis it if it didn't have an exclusive run in the theatres first.

And I agree that right now there are enuf of us old farts who do see the theatrical release as the only way a film can be legitimized, but that may not remain the norm. It will all depend on young people's perception (not ours), and make no mistake about it, the studios are working diligently to convince the young people that buying their product in variants other than conventional movie theatres is legitimate -- even "cool." Internet is where all the hip, cool stuff happens; movie theatres is for the old folks. The studios' goal is to make ALL outlets equal so they can sell their product everywhere possible.

And you KNOW studios' ad campaigns can shape perception -- witness the Apple ads, painting the PC guy as totally unhip, old, homely, while the Apple kid as young, cute, hip and condescending (but only subtly; not enough to make him unlikable). That campaign is hugely successful. Just be glad the studios don't decide to mount a similar campaign with conventional theatres represented by that unhip, fat, EveryOldman, while the purchase of movies via internet, cable, DVD and iPods are represented by a young, hip EveryKid. And they would do it in a second if they think they could make more money going down that direct-to-cable/DVD home theatre route. In a second my friends.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 12-31-2007 02:23 PM

I think saturating the market with prints makes sense when people have a finite amount of "going out" time, such as during this past week. Over a long summer what you all say makes more sense, but when people only have 2 weeks or so to visit family and do these sort of activities, we need to pack in as many as possible in as little time as possible.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 01-01-2008 12:54 PM

And therein lies the other side of the argument, which makes as much sense to the consumer as a wider window makes to an exhibitor.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.