Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Boxoffice Magazine rant

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Boxoffice Magazine rant (Page 3)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 15 16

Author

Topic: Boxoffice Magazine rant

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-29-2008 09:42 PM

So has anyone thought to e-mail a link to this thread to Box Orifice magazine? They should at least be told that important people in the industry do not approve of their rag. Actually, I'm not sure why anyone would read it in the first place. We got both that and Film Journal at the theater back in the day and they were pretty boring magazines from what I recall. Their writers were far too busy trying to be boring rather than anything else. It was like each article had a required 26,000 word minimum.

Bottom line: People who write for these magazines are boring people and should be avoided at all costs unless you want a non-addictive sleep aid.

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-31-2008 11:09 AM

quote:
I would pay money for a magazine that included features such as the following:

I don't think you will ever see this if it doesn't already exist.

The content you speak of would be truly useful, interesting, and of value to prospective readers. But print publications are having an incredible difficulty staying afloat, and I seem to remember (back when they weren't having such troubles) that print publications like magazines and newspapers take 5-7 years to turn a profit.

The business climate these days won't support such a long return on investment, especially the type of investment required to provide all of the information you listed at the quality level that would be expected from its readership.

Even if you remove the challenges involved with printing by doing it online, hiring and retaining the qualified staff to deliver the content would still be a very tough thing to do these days. Besides, people see a publication that's online and they immediately want it to be free. Advertisers still see the most value in print advertising, and will not pay more than very small sums to appear in an online publication.

So where does that leave the potential audience? Finding individual resources like the Film-Tech forums and other sites that provide their own pieces of the puzzle. It forces everyone to wade through the clutter out there, and it fragments the potential audience that a single resource could attract.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 04-03-2008 08:53 AM

Problem with BoxOffice is the same as Hollywood Reporter-- they're not getting to the news fast enough. Daily Variety has the scoop because they have reporters working every day, obviously, but when you get the latest issue of BoxOffice, it's usually old news if you're keeping your eye on things.

IMHO, the magazine jumped the shark when they stopped using that orange ink.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2008 07:47 AM

I bailed out on BO about 10 years ago. International Film Journal still is on subscription. It to has suffered, but not to the extent of BO, from pandering to digital and then there are the "congratulation" issues....someone hand me the barf bag.

| IP: Logged

Justin West
Master Film Handler

Posts: 271
From: Peoria, IL, USA
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 04-16-2008 10:14 AM

Joe: I have emailed the editor of BoxOffice regarding this thread as BO has been a big disappointment to me as well. To go along with Barry's line of thought, I had submitted an article I wrote regarding a facet of the drive-in industry and, given that June 6th will be the 75th anniversary of the first drive-in theatre, I thought sure they would be interested. Their editor even wrote to say he would take a look at it and get back with me. That was back on December 12th...and my periodic inquiries have gone unanswered. It ain't your daddy's BoxOffice anymore...heck, it ain't even your BoxOffice anymore. Like others say, it seems betroven to the digital corporate stratosphere where film and independent exhibition is something to be ignored. Too bad...I even started subscribing a few years before I had my first theatre, just to get to know the industry. It was still a resource back then...eh, Barry? [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

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

posted 04-19-2008 10:36 AM

When I was a kid, my boss used to bring his used Boxoffice mags to the drive-in. I looked forward to reading them. They were a connection to the outside world that we in the rural areas didn't see much.

Now, they might as well just send their copies to the manufacturers. That self-backslapping doesn't do much to advance my business.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-19-2008 11:09 AM

While it's not perfect and there is a lot of backslapping (all trade pubs have this), I think Boxoffice is far superior to what it used to be before the relatively recent sale. It does vary from issue to issue, but the new design is light years ahead of the old one (which was an embarrassment) and it's better written. In fact, under the old management, I was sure that Boxoffice was probably going to fold.

Before the new owners took over, the magazine was designed and written as if it was still 1954. It still gave owners stupid marketing slogans to market the movie by as if individual theater owners still had any say in the matter.

While Forums like this provide better and more precise info on projection booth and specific management issues, I still enjoy reading Boxoffice. Now there is a certain guy who doesn't seem to write for Boxoffice anymore whose name I apparently can't mention here because of some past controversies and I do miss his articles (even if I didn't always agree with him), but I guess I can't talk about it.

I would like to see more historical articles, but most trade magazines these days ignore their heritage because they don't consider that to be part of the 'business". I also think they should have fewer articles about specific movies because by the time they publish them, the movie is already out.

When Reed bought Variety from the Silverman family, they killed "Variety-speak" ("Wall Street Lays an Egg", "Hicks Nix Stix Pix", etc.) because they wanted to make it more of an international paper and it didn't translate well, but that's what made Variety fun to read. They also redesigned it, but instead of improving it, they made it look like the average weekly computer magazine. And they killed the domestic boxoffice summaries because various services now provide that info overnight, but I always liked it because it included a list of the major theaters in each city, the number of seats and the "nut".

And in Daily Variety, they killed the crossword puzzle, which I thought was useful because people would save them and therefore browse each issue longer. But the industry has changed and these trade journals are going to change with it. (And now Reed has put Variety and its other business trades up for sale, so it will be interesting to see what the next owner does with them.)

So...while it has its faults and there's always room for improvement and they're always going to have issues where some association head or theatre chain owner is being celebrated and there's tons of bad photos and stupid congratulatory ads, I still enjoy Boxoffice.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 05-14-2008 08:28 AM

I stopped paying attention to Box Office magazine 5-6 years ago. Usually their information is so far out of date that it's not worth while.

I can appreciate missing what it used to be, but there are so many on-line resources that cover most of that info in a more timely fashion. It's almost like reading an article about the Super Bowl in Sports Illustrated a week after the game was played.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-06-2008 10:42 AM

Bump.

This month's issue (August) has to be the worst yet.

Let's peruse the articles:

- guy who runs a boxoffice numbers service (?) talks about how great the summer, 2008 boxoffice numbers are
- guy who runs a web site about [dlp]

argues that the 1.3k (non-)standard should be accepted since almost-as-good-as-35mm-film 2k is "too expensive"
- guy who works for AccessIT's alternative-content division talks about how theatre owners should promote his alternative content themselves, since it obviously isn't getting enough promotion from AccessIT
- NATO president justifies his existance by talking about why theatre owners should join NATO
- NATO director of government affairs justifies his existance by talking about why NATO should concern itself with government affairs
- someone from the National Association of Concessionaires justifies her existance by talking about why people should attend the NAC convention
- Cinema Advertising Council members justify their existance by talking about the benefits of cinema advertising
- "exclusive concession report" talks about popcorn prices (actually somewhat interesting and relevant) and about one chain's adoption of a new type of popcorn bag which just happens to be made by one of the magazine's advertisers
- movie reviews are pretty much as they have been for the last year or so--lame, lame, lame

There are actually a couple of interesting and relevant articles, but they are completely drowned out by the aforementioned crap. Is there really so little interesting and relevant material in this industry that the publishers of Boxoffice must resort to filling its pages with worthless self-serving tripe such as this?

It would be an improvement if they would just stop accepting "congratulations to..." ads and at least pretend to offer balanced perspectives on controversial issues such as cinema advertising and the ratings system.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-11-2008 07:50 PM

Scott: "Amen!" Louis (former advertiser in B. office)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 08-12-2008 03:49 AM

I remember the red covered,weekly BO magazines that were tons more informative about the industry that what the current magazine contains now.

There for a while, you know when things got a little thin is when you see BO magazine that was stapled. The old magazines were like novels to really gander through - so thick and full of infomation.

Luckilly, I still read this magazine for free since our company subscribes to this magazine and sends issues to our locations - I wouldn't pay for a magazine that I can read once

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-12-2008 10:54 AM

quote: Scott Norwood
It would be an improvement if they would just stop accepting "congratulations to..." ads and at least pretend to offer balanced perspectives on controversial issues such as cinema advertising and the ratings system.

But how much could be written about those things that hasn't already been written? Talk about beating a dead horse.

They need to write about digital cinema because that's where the industry is going, like it or not, and the congrats ads have been there as long as I've been in the biz...I dare say without those ads the mag wouldn't exist.

With the exact same info being available instantly on the web, I'm surprised it still exists anyway.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-12-2008 12:57 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
But how much could be written about those things that hasn't already been written?

Maybe nothing. But I find it annoying when they keep printing articles in support of both, usually written by people with vested interests in them, without even pretending to present any balanced, opposing viewpoints.

quote: Mike Blakesley

They need to write about digital cinema because that's where the industry is going, like it or not, and the congrats ads have been there as long as I've been in the biz...I dare say without those ads the mag wouldn't exist.

The digital cinema stuff is fine and well and good when it is _useful_ to the average theatre owner and/or manager and/or employees. The self-promotional crap written by the studios or Fithian or AccessIT or others with a financial interest in the technology's adoption and success is not.

I find the "congratulations" ads to be irritating, but I could live with their existance if the rest of the magazine contained quality, worthwhile material, which it mostly does not. They could at least have decent movie reviews and a useful release chart.

quote: Mike Blakesley

With the exact same info being available instantly on the web, I'm surprised it still exists anyway.

It won't for much longer if the trend of turning the whole magazine into one big advertisement continues. My subscription expires in December and will not be renewed. As it is, I feel as if my last renewal was a waste of money.

| IP: Logged

Don Anderson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 08-12-2008 02:57 PM

I think that the subscription price is too expensive. The last chain that I worked for would not subscribe to it, and I actually paid for my own subscription and had it sent to my house. Prior to that, our theatre had an ongoing subscription to it. Basically, everything was old news by the time it reached our mailbox. But, I still looked forward to each issue. Film Journal is a much better magazine.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 08-13-2008 09:13 AM

quote: Scott Norwood
The digital cinema stuff is fine and well and good when it is _useful_ to the average theatre owner and/or manager and/or employees. The self-promotional crap written by the studios or Fithian or AccessIT or others with a financial interest in the technology's adoption and success is not.

EXACTLY! How about an unbiased comparison between equipment -- advantages, disadvantages, etc. From reading Mark's posts over the years, it is obvious he feels some there are some very significant differences between digital systems. So how about a Consumer Report's kind of evaluation on weaknesses and strengths of a variety of technical parameters of each system currently on the market. THAT kind of thing would be extremely useful.

How about a breakdown of REAL costs of buying (with an honest assessment of who pays what), installing, maintaining? Or what are the areas that can cause a lost show(s) with digital? One of my friends said she went to see JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH in 3D at the UA Movies at Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn and the shows for the rest of the day were canceled. Well, it would be nice to have an unbiased article about how many times this kind of thing happens, what causes the loss of a digital show, how to prevent it, etc. They used to have this kind of article about film anomolies in the past; it would make the rag actually worth the subscription price if it started to do substantive pieces on digital as well.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 15 16

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.