|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 01:03 PM
The media is starting to comment on more of Premium Large Screen expansion. I would assume the box office reports will eventually report on premium large screen averages as well as IMAX averages.
Premium Large Format
“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Iron Man 2 are pushing Hollywood to another record-breaking year at the box office.
But moviegoers didn’t just flip for Katniss Everdeeen and Tony Stark. The reason that the business hit a new high-water mark goes beyond a handful of blockbusters.
Older audiences turned out in force, “Gravity“ reminded ticket-buyers about the power of IMAX and 3D, and horror movies proved that people prefer getting scared in packs.
That’s the good news. Before studio executives pop the champagne, it’s also worth noting that 2013 marked the release of some of the biggest bombs in film history - a murderer’s row of duds including “R.I.P.D.“ and “The Lone Ranger“ that left moviegoers asking, “why?“
To guard against another series of write-downs and lost profits, TheWrap has cooked up six essential take-aways from the year that was. It’s a prescription studios should consider following to the letter, otherwise the next “After Earth“ could be yours.
HALLOWEEN ISN’T THE ONLY TIME FOR HORROR
Horror films were among the year’s most consistent box office performers, as studios discovered that audiences like to get scared whatever the season. Not so long ago, horror was a genre that was largely confined to Halloween, but “The Conjuring,“ “The Purge,“ “Mama“ and “Insidious : Chapter 2 all opened at different points of the fall, winter and summer, drawing crowds of moviegoers looking to get frightened.
But the genre has become important in other ways. These films have some of the widest profit margins in the business, and are frequently produced for a fraction of what most films cost to make. Indeed, “Insidious” producer Jason Blum has become a phenomenon because of his low cost, high thrills formula and it’s being widely emulated throughout the industry.
“The Purge” and “Insidious: Chapter 2,” both of which Blum produced, cost a mere $3 million and $5 million to produce, and made $89.3 million and $160.4 million worldwide, respectively. Films without Blum’s fingerprints, still had his DNA. For instance, “The Conjuring” required just $20 million to shoot and brought in $316.7 million in global ticket sales.
Horror films are social experiences. Even in an age where the internet provides a cornucopia of entertainment options that are instantly available, scary movies still entice ticket buyers to turn off the iPhone, meet up with friends and hit the multiplex. After all, it always helps to have an arm nearby to grab in fright.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
The recipe for major box-office success traditionally has been to score with “four quadrants” - men and women, younger and older. But big screens have never been bigger than they were in 2013, and may be creating a “fifth quadrant.”
Moreover, films such as “Gravity,” with its vast outer space vistas, reminded viewers of the format’s power.
Eight of the top-grossing movies globally were screened in IMAX and domestically, the format on average accounted for 15 percent of opening weekend grosses - up 35 percent from last year. IMAX was even bigger overseas, and is in the forefront of China’s booming market, which is projected to grow by 36 percent this year. IMAX’s grosses will be up by 55 percent and it recently cut a deal with Chinese exhibition giant Wanda that could add 120 more screens.
It’s not just Imax. Premium Large Format screens brought in $223 million this year, a 23 percent hike from last year, and all of the top 20 films played in the format. Grosses at Cinemark, the largest PLF provider, were up 14 percent domestically and 19 percent globally.
So, settle in, grab your popcorn and get blown away.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 12-30-2013 01:08 PM
I am not expert on this. But Mike, I gotta say I have a hard time believing that people will just casually pay for an IMAX showing just because it is in prime time. Maybe some don't care if it's IMAX or not and one or two alpha people in the group drive the decision. the surcharges are not exactly cheap to have a significant number of random walkups just because the movie is at a certain time. At least, that is my guess based on my personal interaction with friends and family. I am sure you met some who do. But is that a significant number to use to downplay IMAX revenues as just being a byproduct of good times?
But I will say that IMAX is the default for the "big format" and by lowering standards with IMAX, they opened the door for PLFs to offer consumers more options and I can see a viewer coming to the multiplex and choose among a PLF and an IMAX showing based on whatever is at a convenient time.
And for me as a consumer, usable screen size(so the unused top and bottom of movies in IMAX doesn't count as a bigger screen experience to me) is more important than the underlying technology. This is where I straddle both sides of the argument. If the digital resolution is not remotely comparable to 15/70 , then just projecting it on a big classic IMAX screen is unacceptable just to say they gave you a big screen experience.
From what I have seen, Liemax images are perfectly acceptable as a moviegoing experience if the surcharges were reduced because it is not awe inspiring to me but it is preferable to the typical multiplex large screen in the digital age.
However, Terry, let's face it. IMAX surcharges remained the same or went up for for the Liemax we experienced with other movies on smaller screens and MUCH SMALLER pictures (courtesy the cinematic aspect ratios of 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) on an unmasked smaller liemax screen. Yes, IMAX is still doing fine because of that momentum created by earlier IMAX movies. Let's see how those revenues hold up as more PLFs are set up. Hopefully, at some point, PLFs will hopefully keep improving and make the difference so small that consumers would rather pay the smaller surcharge to watch a PLF presentation. If IMAX reduced the surcharge ala PLFs do and rebranded it, they will temper expectations and break free from comparisons to original IMAX.
The best of both worlds would be for IMAX to continue to remain strong but they wise up and offer theaters a superior product where the IMAX margins are not big enough to tempt the theaters to cut out the middle man on an almost good enough experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 01:43 PM
quote: Pravin Ratnam
However, Terry, let's face it. IMAX surcharges remained the same or went up for for the Liemax we experienced with other movies on smaller screens and MUCH SMALLER pictures (courtesy the cinematic aspect ratios of 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) on an unmasked smaller liemax screen. Yes, IMAX is still doing fine because of that momentum created by earlier IMAX movies.
I agree with about the surcharges remaining the same or going up. Scotiabank Toronto charges $20 a ticket for IMAX, when the ended 15/70 they kept the pricing the same.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
The best of both worlds would be for IMAX to continue to remain strong but they wise up and offer theaters a superior product where the IMAX margins are not big enough to tempt the theaters to cut out the middle man on an almost good enough experience.
I am not sure but perhaps the current 2x2K projectors will be upgraded to 4K at some point. I am sure if that can easily be done without entirely new projectors.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I gotta say I have a hard time believing that people will just casually pay for an IMAX showing just because it is in prime time.
Mike obviously has very little experience, the IMAX locations in my entire province are reserved seating. For big movies such as The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit 2, the movies are sold out well in advance, often a week or two ahead of time, so his idea of people showing up and buying tickets at the box office because it is at the perfect showtime of 7pm is full of shit.
The movies that are being played in IMAX are getting an "event" status push.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-30-2013 03:50 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike obviously has very little experience, the IMAX locations in my entire province are reserved seating. For big movies such as The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit 2, the movies are sold out well in advance, often a week or two ahead of time, so his idea of people showing up and buying tickets at the box office because it is at the perfect showtime of 7pm is full of shit.
Who are you, Tom Petrov? You're beginning to sound more and more like him.
Quit putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that all of the people at an Imax show are there by accident, default, or otherwise. I simply said that SOME OF THEM ARE. That's the part you refuse, or are too stupid, to understand.
I'll give you a great example right now. When we went to see Gravity at the LieMax in Boise, I, me, Mike, was the one who insisted that we see it there because I wanted to see "how good" the Imax 3-D experience was. I had with me: My wife, a friend, her husband, and another guy from the theatre convention. ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE would have been just as happy seeing the movie in a good old standard theater. I was the only one who insisted on us going to the Imax theater (and I paid for the cab ride for the five of us). I did play it up as a special occasion. Come on you guys, it's the Imax 3-D show! Did we all come out raving about how awesome it was? The movie, yes. The theater....it was OK, but not necessarily worth the extra money. And the 3-D glasses were heavy and uncomfortable; I remember some of us commenting we were glad the movie was so short for that reason.
So are we repeat Imax customers, any of the five of us? Maybe. If there's a movie we want to see, at a time we want to see it, and it's in an Imax theater, I would probably see it there again. Especially if the movie was not extremely popular, because if you went into one of the other screens you'd run the risk of it being a shoebox. But I don't think I would cruise across a city to get to an Imax theater again. And if I was familiar with a venue and knew that the standard theater was a nice big one with good sound, I'd pick that over the Imax anytime and feel just fine about it.
You and Edward just keep insisting that every dollar taken in by Imax is "because it's Imax" and I'm saying that's not always true. I can't figure out why that's so hard for you guys to admit or comprehend. You seem to want to deal in absolutes, but when dealing with humans that's an impossible thing.
I'll give you another thought. We have Dolby 3-D at my theater. I would guess that a full half of the people at any given 3-D show are NOT there because it's 3-D. They're there to satisfy their kids, or because it's opening week of a hot new movie, or they were brought along by a significant other, or quite possibly they just happened to show up and wanted to see the movie that night and didn't even know it was in 3-D. And even the ones who DO like 3-D and sought us out for that reason are probably not even aware what kind of 3-D we have. So maybe out of a hundred people, there are maybe a dozen true fans of Dolby® brand 3-D. But they're all there; they paid the surcharge, so in your view every one of those patrons would be HUGE DOLBY 3-D FANS.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-30-2013 04:40 PM
Wow, I leave for a while and this thread explodes... I don't know if anyone is still reading this beyond the current combatants, but I'll be optimistic and add some info, hopefully without fueling the fire.
I agree with the original topic of non-IMAX PLF's becoming more prevalent as time goes on, and probably to the detriment of IMAX. After all, if a theater chain can market their PLF to drive traffic as much as the IMAX brand can (which is marketing that will benefit all theaters that have IMAX theaters, including their competitors), there is little reason for that chain to keep their IMAX affiliation. Every mainstream movie that has an IMAX version is available to non-IMAX theaters with PLF screens.
IMAX has definitely cashed in on their past to fund their future. Each year, that past reputation becomes less of a factor, because each year, less and less people will have experienced or will remember seeing a movie in a classic IMAX theater. That means that IMAX must continue to build their brand or risk it becoming trampled in the march of progress.
As long as it has some value it will be used, though. Just look at Polaroid-branded TV's for an example. WTH does Polaroid have to do with TV's? Nothing, but people still recognize the brand, so it's better to name a TV "Polaroid" than "Qwetzel" or something else that is unknown.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There is no Internet equivalent of the newspaper stack ad -where various theaters in a region can be measured against each other in at least some kind of basic way to see how each is showing a certain movie. There is a lot of sound & projection variables in digital cinema that aren't being clearly disclosed to the movie-going public.
I'll raise my hand to counter that statement. Since 1995, The BigScreen Cinema Guide (which I publish) has provided information about what the various theaters are offering for each presentation (digital sound, stadium seating, digital cinema, THX, Open Caption, AVX/ETX/RPX/etc.)
Here is a sample from the Showtimes page for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in HFR 3D near Denver:
As always, the quality of this information is directly related to the effort put forth by the theaters. It's only as good as the information they provide, so if they don't mention Atmos, we can't display it. The free-form comments that appear under the showtimes are provided by the theaters, so 4K, Auro, RPX, etc. will be displayed if provided, and we highlight the information we deem important into the other columns (currently no U.S. theaters are advertising Auro shows).
As far as other information about theaters and what installations are in them, we are dependent upon the theaters and our readers to provide that information. We work with our Featured Theaters (the ones we have formal relationships with) to provide good information about what they provide to their customers. We also provide our readers with the Reader Comments feature so that they can provide snippets of information about their experiences, info about screens, etc., and even ticket pricing. I would love for those here that have that information about theaters to share it on our site!
The best tool a chain wanting to leverage their PLF over IMAX has is information. It's the basics of marketing: what makes your product better and/or different than the competition?
If the PLF is better, then educating the audience is key to establishing the foothold and eventually kicking IMAX to the proverbial curb. Through effective marketing, any head-start or advantage that IMAX may have can be countered, but the marketing must also be supported by an excellent experience, or the marketing will ring hollow.
That's a tough hill to climb, as I think that IMAX does a pretty good job of marketing to the public. Its brand is prevalent in advertising like movie posters, trailers, and TV commercials. It even managed to get its brand inserted into the title of movies:
e.g. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug An IMAX 3D Experience
How great is that? Whoever managed that particular feat did a wonderful thing, because it's built-in branding and perceived differentiation that won't be matched by the RPX/ETX/XD's out there.
I do think that it would be advantageous from a branding perspective for all these PLF efforts to have a single brand name, I don't think it will ever happen. Getting all these competing companies to agree on a name, much less some framework of standards to assure consistency is likely impossible. A common brand name is probably not necessary anyway, as the public is becoming trained to see an acronym with an "X" in it and recognize it as the PLF for that theater.
quote: Steve Guttag
My very long winded point is that the consumer's lack of understanding is no excuse to not provided the very best experience that technology and prudent business practices will allow. What the public is buying for that ticket is that experience.
Hear, hear! This paragraph should be the motto of every movie theater!
If every theater were to do business with that basic understanding as their guiding principal, I can't help but think that success would follow. It's the chipping away at that concept that causes shortcuts to be taken, blown speakers not replaced, curtains not installed, and eventually, nothing but the least amount of effort that is absolutely necessary is left.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 05:05 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I paid $13 to see Skyfall in Warren's IMAX house and $16 for The Hobbit in 3D (which I chose to see in IMAX Digital solely for the brighter dual projection 3D, the ONLY benefit I see with IMAX Digital).
Bobby, you bash IMAX digital yet you are a repeat customer.
quote: Scott Jentsch
That's a tough hill to climb, as I think that IMAX does a pretty good job of marketing to the public. Its brand is prevalent in advertising like movie posters, trailers, and TV commercials. It even managed to get its brand inserted into the title of movies:
e.g. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug An IMAX 3D Experience
How great is that? Whoever managed that particular feat did a wonderful thing, because it's built-in branding and perceived differentiation that won't be matched by the RPX/ETX/XD's out there.
I think it is safe say that "Premium Large Format" will be used going forward by the movie studios. I have seen it now on a number of different trailers. I have also seen Cineplex Ultra AVX pop up a number of times on televisions spots.
Eventually premium large format will overtake IMAX for box office, Cineplex has three PLF theatres to every one IMAX venue. Per screen averages, who knows? But the studios will be relentless in pushing PLF going forward.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 05:14 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you bash IMAX digital yet you are a repeat customer.
Well, this is getting funny. Let me grab a bag of popcorn and fetch some nachos, but please wait until the cheese is properly heated...
- I bash Digital IMAX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash D-BOX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash 2K for big screens and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash HFR, and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash my current ISP, yet I'm a repeat customer.
- I bash my mobile provider for continuously overcharging me and delivering a general shitty service, but there is no real alternative, and I'm a repeat customer.
But Terry, how can you bash something, if you haven't experienced it first hand at least a few times? Maybe your first impression was a false start? Maybe stuff is different at another location?
* I didn't pay for all the experiences, some of them were provided to me, so that might disqualify me as a "customer" in the strictest sense of the word.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Home
Topic Closed
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic