Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Box Office magazine

This is topic Box Office magazine in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000380

Posted by James Dunn (Member # 188) on 11-08-1999, 12:30 PM:

I've been hearing quite a bit about Box Office magazine and am curious what kind of info is in it. Does anyone have an old issue or two that they would be willing to send me so I can check it out? They don't have to be very recent or even in good shape. I just don't want to pay the $10 for back issues and $40 for a 1 yr subscription that their website is asking just to find out what's in it.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-08-1999, 12:46 PM:

Box Office magazine is very good. Every theatre should have a subscription. So make your theatre take one out. If you send me your address via email, I will send you a couple issues.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-08-1999, 01:12 PM:

I lied. I have a couple of issues of Film Journal lying around the house. Film Journal is also a good magazine to subscribe to.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-08-1999, 04:07 PM:

Both publications have abbreviated editions "on-line" on the web:
http://www.boxoffice.com
http://www.filmjournal.com

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 11-08-1999, 06:33 PM:

BOXOFFICE magazine is a MUST HAVE for anyone in the theater industry.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-1999, 07:33 PM:

I used to read Box Office all of the time (and Film Journal) when I worked at UA. But since I left I have not had the opportunity to read either, and I have survived just fine.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-08-1999, 07:45 PM:

I get Boxoffice at home. The technical articles are usually pretty of pretty low quality. However, the once-yearly directory of distributors, manufacturers, and service organizations is extremely handy and the film reviews (usually pretty late, though...) and upcoming release schedules are worthwhile. It's worth subscribing to Boxoffice, particularly if you can get your employer to pay for it, although the publication really could be improved significantly without too much work.

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 11-08-1999, 10:20 PM:

Boxoffice is expensive, and if I had to pay for it myself, I'd say forget it, but as Scott mentioned, the issues with listings of distributors, suppliers, exhibitors, etc., make the subscription worthwhile. The magazine has improved greatly over the last ten years-the film reviews are now much closer to the actual day and date of release. They used to print reviews of film that were long gone from any first(or second)run theatre before you received the issue. As far as a release schedule, I very much prefer the Independent Marketing Edge, or IME, guide. It's published biweekly, and Dan is usually pretty good about putting the most up to date information in each newsletter. It also gives info about sound format, ratio format, and running times, which Boxoffice could not provide in a topical manner. IME also is quite expensive, but does have the advantage over Boxoffice in that it doesn't accept advertising, and doesn't have a column by John Allen. If you can get corporate to spring for them, I very much suggest both.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-10-1999, 11:50 AM:

BOXOFFICE was great when it was a weekly. When the ownership changed and it went monthly, seems like it lost its direction. The weekly was more topical, naturally.

And those wonderfully cyclical Wesley Trout articles! BTW, if anyone remembers Wes, you'll appreciate:
http://www.win.net/~ltreed/trout/

Tim

Posted by John F. Allen (Member # 218) on 11-11-1999, 08:46 AM:

Dear Mr. Ferreira

If you would like to write the longest running, most widely read and highly praised sound column in the magazine¹s history, you are welcome to try. BOXOFFICE is always happy to receive submissions.

John F. Allen

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 11-19-1999, 06:21 PM:

I started to subscribe to Boxoffice when it was a weekly and a suscription was $3.00 per year. Now it's a monthly and not nearly as good with a price MANY times that.

------------------

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 11-19-1999, 06:31 PM:

Box Office is expensive??? Have any of you priced Variety lately? $40/year is not bad in my opinion and hey at least Box Office mails the magazine on time, which is more than I can say for Film (almost always a month late) Journal. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-19-1999, 06:37 PM:

One year, I got some sort of "special offer" card for a $15 one-year subscription to Boxoffice. This was a couple of years ago, so I guess that they send these sorts of "deals" out from time to time. $40/year isn't _that_ bad for a fairly specialized magazine that is the type of publication that generally gets saved for many years rather than tossed in the trash when the next issue comes.

By the way, the December issue contains another one of those Kodak "Screen Check" ads, featuring the 6-perf film and the guy with the digital beard. There's another ad from some sound-equipment company that has a reel of 16mm film used as a graphic device...hmmm...I guess their product is really bad if it sounds like 16mm optical tracks...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-23-1999, 09:58 AM:

At least the advertising agency air-brushed the extra loop of film that was originally on the left side of the photo in the original ad , after Joe Redifer's keen eye caught the discrepancy. Mark is thinking of growing a real beard to match the "digitally enhanced" one they put on him. As far as the 6-perf frame, I still don't know why they decided to digitally change the original normal 4-perf leader that was on the print.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-23-1999, 02:50 PM:

Did you send the ad agency a printout of Joe's thread on the Kodak ad? I'm wondering what prompted the extra work before the next printing.

By the way, under close observation Mark's digital beard apprears to have been removed and replaced with a shadow.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-23-1999, 03:35 PM:

We shared Joe's comments with the Kodak Cinema Operations Group that manage the ScreenCheck Experience project, so they listened. They are based in Los Angeles, and I think the ad agency they deal with is located there too.