Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LA Times: Small town cinemas want new films sooner

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » LA Times: Small town cinemas want new films sooner (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: LA Times: Small town cinemas want new films sooner

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 10-15-2014 06:12 PM

quote: Frank Cox
Some years ago, I had a film booker suggest that I could "just go and pick up" a movie from a theatre in Alberta since their last night was Thursday and I was playing it on Friday night. She was really surprised when I pointed out that the location is 650 miles and a twelve hour drive from here.

I had a lady from Disney years ago ask me to "just go pick up" a movie from a theater in Kalispell, which is indeed in Montana, but you have to drive about 600 miles and cross two mountain ranges to get there. In winter you're lucky if you don't have bad roads somewhere along the way.

quote: Leo Enticknap
Say, $50 to ship the hard drive to and from a small town theater, a few posters, and that's about it.

And they don't pay for the shipping, we do.

We also run trailers for free too, which apparently some city theaters don't.

At least we don't have to pay for posters or trailers anymore, so some things are favorable (so far, anyway).

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, has your cinema ever been denied a first week booking since you went to digital like in this particular situation?

As a rule we can usually get anything that's a "wide" release as long as we're willing to pay the terms and play for the required minimum length of time.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 10-17-2014 11:10 AM

Such a pile of hippopotamus dung as ever I've heard. "Print" availability and print costs as an excuse to black out a theatre from getting a picture on the break from studios whose execs have wet dreams at the thought of "opening" all over the world on every device known to man AT THE SAME TIME, THEY want to BLOCK IT from playing it at a theatre that is willing to meet terms? So let me get this straight...if they got their wish, and they could play it day-and-date everywhere, they would STILL deny it to the small town exhibitor? These people are living down the Alice's rabbit hole.

Hey, and what if that small town exhibitor would PAY $100 for a hard drive -- he is already pays shipping -- so would he STILL be denied screen play, even though THAT's the reason this schmuck is giving for the refusal?

Or is it that they have simply come to the idiotic conclusion that they only need the big chain theatres in major markets as advertising tools to create public excitement in order to give the title legs for all the ancillary outlets and they don't really need any other theatrical venues except the biggest ones?

Or maybe it is simply that in entire distribution machine, there are lots of these guys who have a vested interest in maintaining control so that they can give the illusion that their skills are still needed for the "complex job" of evaluating bookings on a "picture by picture basis" and from what he says, a theatre by theatre basis as well. In other words, it's to his advantage to hold on to old distribution models that required savvy booking skills; he's just creating bogus job security. In fact, in this age of digital distribution and instant availability, the BEST distribution model is to play a title EVERYWHERE possible while the advertising has created a demand. In such a world there really isn't a lot of need for distribution "talent;" play it everywhere and your done. They themselves give that very excuse for their constant push to shorten the video release window. So why, when you want to shorten the video release would it be advantageous to LENGTHEN the time of availability to a theatre?

Such transparent BS....makes the blood run cold and somehow they think no one can see thru it.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-17-2014 11:39 AM

Frank, did you ever think it might be possible that the studio held it back so the small theater in question would not have an R-rated Gone Girl open and compete against an R-rated Annabelle on the same weekend?

From looking up the theater, it is 3 plex in a town of about 13,000 which is 15 miles from their flagship theater which is playing Gone Girl on the first weekend. The theater in questions plays single nightly shows Mon-Thur which too me is a sign that the theater does not perform all that well, so Fox out thinks the owner by not having two R-rated pictures open and compete against the same small audience the theater is trying to attract. The studio then gets the movie into the theater on the second week, it opens with no "new" weekly competition (as Annabelle drops in the second week) and then the theater keeps the movie to week three. The studio/theater gets the goodwill from word of mouth and national media attention which hopefully drives the success of the small theater.

At the end of the day, if this theater complex was successful and had decent grosses, I highly doubt the studio would of blocked the movie.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 10-17-2014 12:47 PM

You're overthinking it. No studio ever blocked a theater from playing a movie as a marketing strategy. Also it's very rare for a small theater to be able to play in movie in week 2 -- if you don't open on the break you usually have to wait till week 3 or 4, because all the prints are "tied up" for the first couple of weeks.

The article just has the studio guy speculating that "R rated movies and small towns don't always go together." Which IS a true statement -- we don't do nearly as well with R movies unless they are big hits with legs. We almost never open an R movie on the break just because the audience is limited.

The theater in question just simply ran into the age old problem of "print availablity." The studio didn't "block" this theater from getting that print. More likely, they didn't refuse him the print for any reason other than they didn't have one to give him -- which is a problem that shouldn't exist in the digital age.

Of course it all comes down to pecking order. If there are 4000 prints with 5000 theaters wanting those prints, of course they're going to give the prints to the highest-grossing of the 5000. Nobody really knows how much Technicolor or Deluxe charge for digital "prints." If it's really in the $150 range as stated in the article, then the studio is crazy for not making enough prints for everyone who wants one. But I have a feeling Tech and Deluxe charge more than that.

There is also the question of VPFs. If that theater is on the VPF system, then the cost of giving them that print rises substantially. I know there have been a few situations where we have been able to get a print because we are not on a VPF program.

The dumb thing is studios not being willing (or able) to roll with the punches and make a few more prints if they're needed. They apparently decide a couple weeks before release to go with X number of prints and that's it, demand or no demand.

| IP: Logged

Allan Barnes
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 108
From: GRAND BEND, ONTARIO, CANADA
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 10-17-2014 02:33 PM

The answer appears to be tied DIRECTLY to the VPF and number of "print" copies made of any feature film. You need a Hollywood accountant here because... ADDING MORE SCREENS AFTER THE FIRST WEEK CHANGES / INCREASES THE VPF.

CONCLUSION... the number of copies of any film is FIXED. NO NEW SCREENS AFTER NATIONAL ON RELEASE OPENING - "MOVE OVERS" ONLY PERMITTED AFTER WEEK TWO. VPF and NON-VPF CINEMAS GET TREATED THE SAME. Can someone else confirm this?

Sounds like a form of PRICE FIXING.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 10-17-2014 02:49 PM

quote: Allan Barnes
VPF and NON-VPF CINEMAS GET TREATED THE SAME. Can someone else confirm this?

I think when it comes right down to booking, it's NOT necessarily true. There have been a few (not a lot) incidents where I was told by our booker, "you got it because you're not on VPF." So I suppose, if they run out of higher grossing theaters and it comes down to picking between a couple lower grossers to give a print to, they could pick the one not on VPF.

Of course you'd probably never get a studio person to admit this, and I didn't hear it directly from a studio either, just our booker.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

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

posted 10-17-2014 03:37 PM

The R rated movie argument may have some validity, but it is a market by market consideration.

My company has two theatres. The first is in a largely conservative community which skews heavily senior. It's also a fairly religious community. R rated movies aimed at teens and young adults tend to under perform at this theatre. And our company's policy on enforcing the R rating causes many teens to go 20 minutes down the road to a large Cinemark theatre where enforcement is minimal.

On the other hand, the theatre I run is in a smaller community which has a younger population and tends to be much less conservative - both politically and religiously. Plus the community is more geographically isolated. Based on a percentage of national per screen average, my theatre will usually gross comparably to any other wide release. In some cases we'll actually perform better than normal.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-17-2014 04:24 PM

Justin, how many screens is each complex?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-17-2014 05:05 PM

The VPF factor is the only logical reason I can see for denying some small town theaters access to a new movie release on the break. The other excuses coming from studio people or their mouth-pieces is baloney to cover up the fact they're too lazy to change an outdated, obsolete distribution model and adapt to something more effective.

BTW, I think the movie studios may get forced back into that VPF thing or something similar as theaters start grappling with the costs of having to continually replace digital projectors that have nothing near the life span of a film projector.

The recent Nicholas Cage version of Left Behind was a critical dog, with a final tomato meter of 2% at Rotten Tomatoes. To date, the remake has a box office gross of only $11 million.

The people behind that production might have made considerably more money if they had made the movie available on the break to ANY theaters that wanted it. Studio people love thinking in stereotypes. If the stereotype held true Left Behind would have had considerably more demand from the smaller cities and towns where a higher percentage of residents attend church regularly. Business-wise, it would have been very important for the movie to be available immediately to anyone inclined to see it on impulse before the would-be customer found out the show was a total dog.

On to the MPAA ratings excuse.

While there is no shortage of people who will take offense at all sorts of things (not just bare boobies and swear words), small towns have no monopoly on those types of people.

It should also be said the content in Hollywood movies is quite a bit more tame than the content people can access on premium cable and the Internet. The season premiere of The Walking Dead this past Sunday didn't have lots of profanity, but the graphic violence was well into R-rated territory. Some premium channels have non-porn content that goes clearly into NC-17 territory. Any notion of the movie theater being the primary delivery medium bringing immoral content into the pure little town is just stupid.

IMHO, movie studio bosses need to re-think how they book movies in small town theaters, especially ones that have long driving distances to the next town. A lot of customers in rural areas are only too happy to wait for a movie to appear in a Redbox kiosk or on Netflix if they're already forced to wait weeks or even months to see a new movie.

The studio bosses want to make as much money as possible as fast as possible. So why not put the movie into as many theaters as possible and then just pull the virtual prints when the movie has played itself out on a given individual screen? Honestly this approach shouldn't be any different than the practice of sticking some event movie onto 6 or more screens of some 24-plex. After a week or maybe not even that long the movie would lose at least a couple screens and be down to just one screen before long. What does it hurt for a small town theater to have a big movie the same time as several theaters in a big city? This really shouldn't make any difference since lots of movies are now being released internationally in dozens of countries on the break.

I think it's just plain laziness why small town theaters continue to get neglected in the digital age. There was some justification for it when studios were shipping film prints. There's no excuse for it now.

quote: Frank Cox
In Canada, nothing exists outside of Toronto.

And for location shoots Hollywood often tries to pass off Vancouver as any big city in America. Dammit I hate movie geography. They think we can't recognize any landmarks, buildings or even highway sign markers that get in the shots.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 10-17-2014 05:06 PM

The "lack of prints" excuse is SUCH BOLOGNA. My blood boils every time I hear it. "Prints." They aren't even prints anymore!! It's next to free to copy files onto hard drives and ship them out, not to mention extremely fast comparatively. BUUUUUUTTT- Probably at least HALF of exhibitors now get their content via satellite(No print needed at all!) meaning there's got to be a ton of hard drives just lying around!! ANDDD most of those who DO have a hard drive are forced to send them back almost immediately(At least in the first week) keeping thousands of hard drives out of theater booths. So where are the "prints"?!?!?!?!?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 10-17-2014 09:45 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Frank, did you ever think it might be possible that the studio held it back so the small theater in question would not have an R-rated Gone Girl open and compete against an R-rated Annabelle on the same weekend?

No, nor would I, since it's the prerogative of exhibitor to determine what will play best in his demographic, not the studios' and certainly not by them denying product to a theatre based on some hocus pocus whim of who's offended why what and what "goes together," or what they think won't play well in this location and but not another, ESPECIALLY if it winds up denying product to one theatre over another -- some would call that restraint of trade.

If studios want to get into the business of programming, they should just buy their own damn theatres. Bet they wouldn't ever deny themselves prints or ever hear the "no prints available" nonsense.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-18-2014 12:38 AM

Frank, how would this example be restraint of trade? The studio denied the booking, the movie ended up opening in 270 more plus locations on the second week. There was no other competition in the area other than the owners own cinema 15 miles away.

It appears to me that the studio did not want week 1 to compete with Annabelle in the same small market with 13,500 pop.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-18-2014 12:48 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
If it's really in the $150 range as stated in the article, then the studio is crazy for not making enough prints for everyone who wants one. But I have a feeling Tech and Deluxe charge more than that.

A hard drive, a CRU cartridge and a plastic shipping case, which Technicolor and Deluxe probably buy by the truckload, plus the infrastructure and staff time needed to copy the DCP onto the hard drive ... I can't imagine how the cost of doing that to a big distributor would be more than $50-75, and therefore charging the customer $150 to create a digital "print" seems about right to me. Of course the smaller labs and post houses that market themselves to independents and arthouse distributors charge a lot more than that. Ironically, one whose price list I recently saw was only charging around 20-30% less than a 35mm print would have cost "back in the day".

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

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

posted 10-18-2014 04:45 AM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The studio denied the booking, the movie ended up opening in 270 more plus locations on the second week.

I think you're assuming a motive which has no basis in reality. For one thing, Gone Girl was not in direct competition with Annabelle - the two movies appealed to different audiences. It would be more likely if you were to use The Judge and Gone Girl as a comparison. But the logic falls apart when you consider the 270 additional screens were added the same weekend The Judge opened.

If you look at each weekend's box office charts, you will notice that it's fairly common for a movie to add additional theatres in the second weekend. When the numbers are small, its likely just the studios adding theatres that did not have a screen available in week one. In the days of film this was probably theatres with multiple prints dropping one or more and sending them to smaller theatres.

When the number of additional screens in the second weekend is relatively large, this is probably just a planned expansion by the studios. Or response to demand from theatres after a surprise hit.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-18-2014 12:21 PM

Justin, if two new R-rated movies open up in a small town of 13,500 pop on the same day, to me at least the movies would compete with the limited amount of movie goers in the town. Movies do compete with the limited number of moviegoers available.

Now add three new movies to the mix, in fact, the theater in question by visiting their website opened Annabelle, and Left Behind on Oct 3rd, and then they also wanted Gone Girl. So the studio balked and opened Gone Girl in the second week which essentially by waiting one week would now be the new release of the week. Its a smart move on the studio end as they use word-of-mouth and the solid press to launch the movie in a much smaller market.

Funny enough, the chain dumped Gone Girl from all locations in the third week. I am assuming they were allowed to play in for one week at the smaller bottom feeder locations.

| 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.