Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Boxoffice Magazine rant (Page 6)

 
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Boxoffice Magazine rant
Peter Cane
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: San Francisco, CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2008

- posted 09-13-2008 11:41 AM      Profile for Peter Cane   Email Peter Cane   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you for the responses.

First, an update on the archives. We have about 200 leather-bound volumes (about 1,500 pp each) of the magazine going back to 1924. The last of the leather volumes was scanned yesterday. We are in the process of separating these files into individual issues, and we will be posting about 3,000 weekly and about 300 monthly issues of Boxoffice by the end of the year.

Now, back to the future. There is no question that Boxoffice has a pro-digital editorial tone. That's because we're pro-digital. Our view is that digitization is the best thing to happen to exhibition in a long time. I'm not here to persuade anyone, so I'll leave it at that.

But I also agree that we can do a better job on covering many of the topics raised in this forum. Adam Fraser's post contains some great example of how to make Boxoffice a better business tool for independent exhibitors. We will start following up on that today with the goal of having regular coverage of these topics in the magazine starting with the January 2009 issue. Please keep your comments coming to help us make the coverage as relevant and helpful as possible.

In the meantime, here is a sneak peek at the archive. We have uploaded some test copies to www.issuu.com. You can start here: http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_010838

Thanks again for your thoughts,
Peter

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 09-13-2008 08:59 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Peter,

Why should your magazine have a "pro-anything" tone? I guess pro-cinema, in all its many forms is about all I would expect from "Boxoffice." If the magazine is to have value, it should remain technology neutral (not just projection but concession, POS...you name it)...otherwise, you are just a shill for someone's point of view.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

- posted 09-14-2008 07:23 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's OK to be 'pro' anything, but readers should know this. So, my feeling is the magazine should have a 'mission statement' at the first page.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 09-14-2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John,

I think it is okay for people to be pro anything. However a publication such as "Boxoffice" that does not, in and of itself, have any reason to presume a bias sure just stick to the facts and be position/technology neutral. I don't think they need to take on the "even reporting" that keeps tally of pro-this versus pro-that but just report the facts.

What is the point of a Pro-position magazine for this industry? To make one feel good about a purchase they made? It makes it less of an information resource and more of a cheerleader for certain positions. Kinda like Fox-News. There is no need to tune in, you know what they are going to say already. Similarly for Boxoffice, why bother reading, subscribing, advertising? Each issue looks like the last...which is what started this thread.

I find it quite interesting that people are MORE interested in Boxoffice's past than its present.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

- posted 09-15-2008 09:03 PM      Profile for Bill Enos   Email Bill Enos   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An acquaintance who worked in the editorial offices of a major mag. about 25 years ago commented once that there is a LOT of pressure from advertizers for the magazine to take their (the advertizers) point of view in articles and editorials. A quick perusal of Boxoffice and Film Journal will reveal the reason both mags heavily promote digital in their articles. Frequently both magazines have thinly disguised manufacturers promotions written by manufacturers reps pushing products in what they would have us believe are articles or informative stories. [bs] [fu] [thumbsdown] [Frown] To both rags.

 |  IP: Logged
Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

- posted 09-15-2008 09:06 PM      Profile for Richard Fowler   Email Richard Fowler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Reading an average of of 20 + trade journals a month in allied fields....you learn to speed read and pick the truth needle in the haystack [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

- posted 09-15-2008 09:20 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Let's analyze the "pro-digital" situation. How many cinema equipment manufacturers and similar companies are "anti-digital"? Not too many, I'd bet. Box Orifice magazine is pro-digital so that can attract advertisers. They certainly don't want to alienate them. This magazine is not an objective one. They pander to the advertisers, trust me. They have to or otherwise they'd be living on the streets (their readerbase isn't high enough to support them if they had fewer ads). Yes, you'll still see film advertisements in there (likely, I haven't seen an issue for years), but guess which type of technology is more likely to be advertised... especially into the foreseeable future. Bill is correct, Box Office bases their opinions on that of the advertisers, not independent journalistic integrity.

Also, what is up with all of those "congratulations" ads? NOBODY CARES! I am almost tempted to take out my own congratulations ad to make fun of the others.

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 09-16-2008 10:06 AM      Profile for Scott Jentsch   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Jentsch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that there is any such thing as an unbiased publication. Newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and web sites all take some sort of position on things. Some are better than others at tempering their "enthusiasm" for a position, but I can't think of any publication off-hand that does not express opinions about certain topics.

The problem comes in when those publications become myopic and fail to recognize the failings of whatever it is that they are advocating and also fail to recognize the strengths of what may lie on the "other side" from what they advocate. Doing so damages the credibility of the publication in the eyes of anyone capable of critical thought.

I haven't read Box Office Magazine in quite a while, so I can't say if they have fallen into that trap, but if they have, that's a problem that needs to be corrected editorially ASAP if they are to build their subscriber base.

IMHO, if the editors of Box Office Magazine want to attract subscribers, they should open up a dialog with their readers and potential readers. Doing so may be too open for many old-school publishers to be comfortable with, but there is a tremendous resource of knowledge and experience within the ranks of this site's membership alone, and there is great value in tapping that resource.

In defense of Box Office Magazine, though, for all the exposition here about what they are doing wrong, where are the examples of it being done right? Yes, many have mentioned the days of Box Office Magazine gone by, but with all the aforementioned knowledge and experience, where are the white papers and well-written informational articles from said resource?

 |  IP: Logged
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 09-16-2008 03:19 PM      Profile for John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Email John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To quote one of Adam Fraser's points in a pervious post:

"Real dollar costs/benefits of the conversion to digital projection using a theatre that has added a digital projector. Maybe give an accountant all the numbers of the real cost of conversion versus the benefits in decreased shipping costs, less time building up prints, etc. and see how long it would take to make up the $100,000 price tag. I for one don't feel like paying $1500/month on something that might bring in a couple extra patrons a week."

Great suggestion, but you have to wonder how objective they would be, considering Paul Cane's admitted response that " Boxoffice has a pro-digital editorial tone", coupled with the fact that the magazine has to serve its advertisers. Are we really going to get the straight scoop on the real cost of digital conversion for independents?

Admittedly, I'm not a theater owner, but I would hate to see my guys (owners) taken to the cleaners.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 |  IP: Logged
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 09-17-2008 12:01 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Digital Cinema is something that already IS taking place and it's not going to be an option -- so I don't see how anyone reporting "real" numbers (or not) of the costs is relevant.

It's in the vein of red-reader conversions. It wasn't a choice; you installed red-readers or you played silent movies. And, like red-readers, this change will happen because Hollywood wants it to happen.

I can't understand why people are still trying to make pro/con arguments. Game over.

 |  IP: Logged
Adam Fraser
Master Film Handler

Posts: 499
From: Houghton Lake, MI, USA
Registered: Dec 2001

- posted 09-17-2008 12:45 AM      Profile for Adam Fraser   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Fraser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Tim,

I know it is happening, but what I would like to see is a cost- benefit to work out projections of business versus costs for future operations. This allows us to plan for the future with how much we should "put away" and at what times. We will be able to afford the conversion, as will many others, but many will not and they may want to start thinking about alternative uses for their building or when to get out of the business.

There are many little theatres out there that only get 10,000-20,000 or less patrons a year, and when the conversion happens it will most likely be the end of their business. Those theatre owners on the borderline of being profitable as it is now need to be able to look at the true numbers of the conversion, and plan accordingly.

I see the analogy to red readers, but this is a much bigger hit on the checkbook. $2000 wasn't a big deal for the conversion to red readers (if a business cannot afford $2000, you might want to think about a different use for the building). Writing a $100,000 check takes much more planning and contemplating for an independent theatre owner.

[ 09-17-2008, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Adam Fraser ]

 |  IP: Logged
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 09-17-2008 01:35 PM      Profile for John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Email John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Right on, Adam. You couldn't have said it better. Nobody is arguing the inevitability of D Cinema. It's going to happen eventually. The real question for independents is how to do it without breaking the bank.

Are owners going to believe everyting they are told by salespeople? Not likely. What they want is straight answers about cost, maintenance, reliability, and obsolescence so that they can make intelligent choices.

 |  IP: Logged
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 09-19-2008 05:26 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Adam Fraser
This allows us to plan for the future with how much we should "put away" and at what times.
I see your point. Thanks for that good explanation, Adam. I guess that's why I'm not running a business. [Wink]
quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Are owners going to believe everyting they are told by salespeople? Not likely. What they want is straight answers about cost, maintenance, reliability, and obsolescence
FWIW, I don't know that I've ever seen that sort of information in BOXOFFICE -- either before or after Digital Cinema -- outside of certain advertisements. But then, there's the fox-guarding-the-hen-house analogy again.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 09-19-2008 07:06 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tim Reed
Well, Digital Cinema is something that already IS taking place and it's not going to be an option -- so I don't see how anyone reporting "real" numbers (or not) of the costs is relevant.

It's in the vein of red-reader conversions. It wasn't a choice; you installed red-readers or you played silent movies. And, like red-readers, this change will happen because Hollywood wants it to happen.

I can't understand why people are still trying to make pro/con arguments. Game over.
Very well said Tim! Basically if you all want to stay in this buisness you'll have to switch over eventually. If you didn't join CBG then you will have to buy the gear yourself.

Prices on some equipment HAVE gone down and some new stuff has arrived like the M projector that will help keep the initial cost of D-Cinema down and make operation of it less expensive day to day.

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Are we really going to get the straight scoop on the real cost of digital conversion for independents?
Sure, We've sold quite a few D-Cinema systems so far. I sold a new Christie M projector just today. If you want to know how much in black and white it will cost per screen just call your local dealer. He can tell you in black and white. As for longevity... no one knows. Did we all think that DTS 6 players made in the early 90's would still be around today? Only time will answer that question. What you can do request and something that CBG can't offer is extended warranties on the equipment you buy. For instance this week we sold a Christie CP-2000SB with a 7 year warranty! The warranty costs extra but covers everything under the hood.

As for CBG we have found that many of our customers that joined have decided they'd rather buy their own gewar anyway. There are just too many strings attached to the deal... such as use for preshow... you have to pay extra for that... use for kids shows or special showings costs you extra... Again... if you want to be dangled like a marionette for 10 years, if you want to be stuck with an expensive per screen service contract go ahead and get your stuff through CBG. You will be sorry... The CBG deal that looks good on paper has alot of hidden stuff written inbetween the lines that'll cost you a lot of extra $$$$! Why not take that extra cash generated and pay for your own new gear instead of putting it in someone elses bank account???

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

- posted 09-19-2008 10:43 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well if the CBG deal includes the virtual print fees, then it will be worth being in the CBG, since an indie cannot deal with the film companies that way. If the VPFs don't materialize, it's just a matter of sending an "I want out" letter to CBG and then making your best deal (likely a huge compromise in quality in order to make it affordable).

I can't quite understand why it's not possible for an independent to generate virtual print fees by itself. What the hell, it's all computer-generated anyway. The film companies want us gone, it's pretty transparently obvious.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  14  15  16   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.