Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fox is making life difficult for non 3D theatres

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Fox is making life difficult for non 3D theatres (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Fox is making life difficult for non 3D theatres

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 06-29-2009 12:20 PM

Maybe not Chase but it still a fuck of a lot more money than a good 35mm setup. [Roll Eyes]

Remember most indie and single screens are barely making the house nut, so where's the upside to adding another lease/purchase payment to that? And for the tiny returns that Mike mentioned.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 06-29-2009 01:32 PM

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
so where's the upside to adding another lease/purchase payment to that? And for the tiny returns that Mike mentioned.

..just to say "we got one to quiet down the masses that wants to see the magic"...and then, the masses complain on paying more at the gate on something that they wanted in the first place.

A owner of an "indie" house that I worked at many moons ago replied back to me on an idea that I brought up for better projectionist conditions (which I've long forgotten what is was..and he really liked it..), and he simply told me, "If it increases my tix sales on a daily basis,then we can do it. Otherwise, there is no justice in going through with this idea."

Fully agree: tiny returns - returns to head back to film,or be smart to remain as film handlers...

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 06-29-2009 01:34 PM

quote: Chase Taylor
It doesn't cost anywhere near $150,000 anymore.

I suppose used stuff will start turning up as various companies upgrade. I'm not too excited about that prospect though....who wants to buy something used that's outmoded? How's the market for used computers, for example?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 06-29-2009 01:39 PM

Remember the Edsels ... and the very ugly Pontiac Aztek ...?

Yep, Mike - stay with what you got since you're already ahead in the game.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

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

posted 06-30-2009 02:53 AM

The Ice Age trailers end with a mention of 3D in selected theatres. That sux, but not as much as Disney's "G-Force" trailer, which has TWO separate graphics and an announcer pushing "Disney Digital 3D" in the audio... impossible to cut without butchering the whole trailer.

Aside from being totally offended by the practice, I find it amusing that these companys seem to need US to advertise their 3D installs. You'd think they'd be so wonderful they'd could stand on their own feet.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 06-30-2009 03:46 AM

Don't play that trailer. Simple.

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 06-30-2009 03:59 AM

What Joe is trying to say is "Don't use your BEST and CHEAPEST form of advertising to promote a movie you'll likely be playing; instead 'Stand up to THE MAN with a meaningless gesture of refusing to market a movie that will likely hurt you more than the distributer"

I certainly agree that the emphasis on 3D would really suck if you aren't equipped for that, but simply telling people to stop complaining and not market the film is pretty lame too.

Of course to me G-Fore looks completely retarded and I'm betting on it bombing at the box office. What do I know though, I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

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

posted 06-30-2009 01:05 PM

quote: Dustin Mitchell
I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

Yah... me too.

Fox's TV trailers have two 3D plugs... the first does not say digital, just 3D... even more misleading, since that kind of implies that everyone will see it that way... and you know we'll get a few that only heard it the first time.

Somebody mentioned running across a couple of customers who had brought their own anaglyph glasses to a 2D film, and were impressed with the "effect". Something to consider here?

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

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

posted 06-30-2009 02:44 PM

quote: Dustin Mitchell
I certainly agree that the emphasis on 3D would really suck if you aren't equipped for that, but simply telling people to stop complaining and not market the film is pretty lame too.

I don't think it will make a difference. The non-3D locations I know of are down, while the 3D locations are up. I know of at least one manager who has told me he has had to give numerous refunds to people who went in thinking it the movie of their choice was in 3D, and it turned out to be flat.

If you advertise something on even a semi-regular level, you have to deliver, otherwise it can seriously hurt your reputation in the long run.

quote: Dustin Mitchell
Of course to me G-Fore looks completely retarded and I'm betting on it bombing at the box office. What do I know though, I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

G-FORCE won't bomb. Considering the low number of kids films out right now, I predict that it will do phenomenal business. One only had to sit in the screenings of UP and get a taste of what the kiddies thought of the trailer.

Now, on an artistic level, will it suck donkey balls? I leave that to the critics...

| IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

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

posted 06-30-2009 03:22 PM

3-D won't increase overall ticket sales, the same number of people will come to the movie, 3D may take the larger percentage if it is offered both ways. How many tickets will it take at the 50% extra charge for 3D to pay for it? How long will it be before customers get pissed at paying the extra charge and balk.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 06-30-2009 04:07 PM

You think the gesture is "meaningless", Dustin? I know some people who don't play trailers just because the letterboxing bars printed on them make them look out of frame, or make it look as if the xenon is unfocused. Are those people idiots, too? I would never advocate not complaining.

I would simply contact the distributor ask ask for trailers that don't so blatantly promote technology I don't have, telling that I will not run the current trailer. Having it say "in 3D" at the end is fine since it usually has all of the digital sound logos as well. But the trailer makes it sounds like it is ONLY offered in 3D.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 06-30-2009 05:59 PM

Yeah but Joe, they DON'T MAKE trailers that don't say 3-D because 3-D is where THEY make the most money. It's as $imple as that.

quote: Joe Redifer
You think the gesture is "meaningless", Dustin? I know some people who don't play trailers just because the letterboxing bars printed on them make them look out of frame, or make it look as if the xenon is unfocused. Are those people idiots, too?

Well, yes. Intentionally not advertising something you're going to play simply because the trailer meets only 99% of your high standards is just costing you money, NOT increasing your standing as a provider of a splendid moviegoing experience. Nobody is going to judge your presentation by what the trailers look like. The feature film is what they will remember.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 07-01-2009 02:26 AM

Uh oh. You just called Brad an idiot!

quote: Mike Blakesley
Nobody is going to judge your presentation by what the trailers look like.

I understand your point, but does this mean it is OK for trailers to be dirty as hell and scratched? After all, it is the feature that they will remember. Why play trailers at all if they won't be remembered. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 07-01-2009 02:36 AM

I wonder about this - seeing trailers not scratched or whatever, yet the assembly of them is what bug me: they come to the fadeout in the credits then "wham!" - ugly clear or opaque splice and right into the green of the next trailer, plus the thing hops real bad due to a sloppily made splice!

Yet, 99.99% of the people I talked to about the showing never made any comment on that particular theatre's trailer assembly, presentation or condition - just how the movie was...good or bad.

It's like trailer time is additional snakbar time - they know how long the paks are and that buys them that extra time to either be late or standing in snakbar lines..

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-01-2009 08:47 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
As others have mentioned, until the studios come up with a VPF agreement for independents it's difficult to justify the expense. Unless it creates a real cost savings somewhere, it's just a huge expense.

Sheesh... get your own loan or lease... 150 grand isn't the end of the world! I've even had customers in small farming towns in Idaho install two digital systems. As Louis says the pie is split differently... this is absolutely true and alot more of that pie can be yours if you think smart and think smartly ahead of your nearest competition!!! The system would pay for itself in a couple of years... Your county is large enough to support something like this... I checked!

Mark

| 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.