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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Class Action Against Sinemia Calls Its New Fees 'Bait and Switch' (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Class Action Against Sinemia Calls Its New Fees 'Bait and Switch' Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-22-2018 08:45 AM                     Ok, but I still don't see the difference between the butcher and the studio. The studio essentially "bought" the movie, usually also at a pre-determined price. As in, there was a budget and a bunch of people hired by the studio made a movie within the budget allotted (yes, there might be public cases about budget overruns, but don't let us make it too complicated ). Now, the studio is going to sell that movie. The studio can essentially choose any way they want to sell their movie. They might rent it out to exhibitors or offer it as part of a subscription service.  |  IP: Logged Dave Bird Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 777 From: Perth, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2000 posted 11-23-2018 12:49 PM                        You're correct, studio has it's cost, my point was it's difficult for us as exhibitors to consider a subscription model, since we don't have our cost. The whole industry baffles me a little in why they insisted on such complicated equipment and no flexibility on 2-3 week minimums where it makes sense. Seems to me they had the opportunity to sell their product in every town all the time, just like Coca-Cola or McDonald's. Finding some way to get on the subscription gravy train whilst not ruining the exhibitor would probably boost sales volume and profit (from unused "float").  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 11-23-2018 05:15 PM                        Dave, I think the issue has more to do with image and logistical overhead than capability. COULD the studios carpet bomb digital content across the globe? Sure... especially with satellite or internet distribution. The satellite platform could be made simpler than it now is (receive-only, for starters), and there'd certainly be time to broadcast content over the internet. My suspicion is they don't do this because of the image they try to project for each of their titles. For some reason, the industry is obsessed over individual gross performance, as related to competitors' titles. That "per-screen average" has always been a biggie for them. For that reason, among others, my guess is they'll continue to be driven to first-serve those theatres that return the higher rentals... holding off smaller operations to back-fill the initial numbers. The other part is logistical overhead. Even though the cost of delivering content has gone down with the conversion to light, durable hard drives and satellite, there's still a cost to administer, monitor and collect, and the smaller theaters will likely always cost more to watch and collect from than larger, more stable companies. Just my opinion here... worth what you paid for it.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-23-2018 11:10 PM                        quote: Dave Bird The whole industry baffles me a little in why they insisted on such complicated equipment and no flexibility on 2-3 week minimums where it makes sense. Seems to me they had the opportunity to sell their product in every town all the time, just like Coca-Cola or McDonald's. We've been down this road before; it's all about "screen count," although I don't understand why it would make a difference if a bunch of those smaller screens like us would move their print over to another small screen for week 2. Net loss of screens = 0 and they'd be making more film rent than letting it rot in a small theater for a second week. But that's why we don't play more movies on the break. If they'd change that one stupid damn policy I would play a new movie almost every week, my ticket sales would probably go up by at least 30% and I'd be paying more film rental. But they don't like that idea. I guess.  |  IP: Logged Dave Bird Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 777 From: Perth, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2000 posted 11-28-2018 07:37 AM                        I believe what y'all say, no doubt. Certainly I'm biased by being a grocer for so many years, in fairly rural centers too. That distribution system is so mature that if Mrs. Jones wants a different brand of pickled herring than the 11/12ths of a case that's been collecting dust on your shelf for years, you can generally have it for her in a day or two. They manufacturers want every nickel of revenue they can get. That may be my answer right there, they either feel it's too hard to get those nickels OR they are so conditioned to believe it's not worth their time (from film days) that they're still just using those policies. There's probably just nobody in the chain who has any incentive to try anything new.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-28-2018 10:48 PM                        I've always wondered if it's a computer software issue, myself. Their systems are set up on the "old way" and there's no easy way to change it.  |  IP: Logged Dave Bird Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 777 From: Perth, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2000 posted 11-29-2018 10:35 AM                        Well that's a good point, the odd time a studio sends a statement out, our double-features always have the full net sales attached to both. Makes sense on payment terms, but there you go, all they would have to do is assign you a "ghost" screen #2. Ironically, it wouldn't help us outdoors at all, but it movies were brand-new, you were just starting the whole thing, they'd charge more to ship anything to smaller places, they might insist that you pay a bit more for the trouble, but I think they'd give everyone the product, and the idea of "splitting" a screen wouldn't even occur to them. Lots of places wouldn't go for it, but others would. You could decide for yourself if you wanted to run 2 or 3 titles a night. They'd probably have minimum runs which would be fine.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.