![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Paramount!![[Mad]](mad.gif)
quote: Scott NorwoodDefinitely related. As sales of film products decrease, the shrinking economies of scale make the cost of production more expensive, because the fixed costs (buildings, infrastructure, advertising, after-sales support etc.) have to be spread over a smaller volume of sales. So the price per unit goes up.
In (possibly) related news...
quote: Bobby HendersonSome of the processes are common to all motion picture and still film, film base casting and slitting being the main ones. So when motion picture print stock production ends, the infrastructure cost of these common processes will have to be distributed over a much smaller volume of remaining sales.
35mm negative film is made on different production lines.
quote: Scott NorwoodHere is some more related news.
In (possibly) related news, Kodak has announced a price increase on nearly all of its motion-picture products. Estimate is about a 10% increase. This takes effect on January 1.
quote: Brad MillerWas there an article, press release, e-mail or some other way that the announcement was made that i cannot find? I don't doubt that film will be ending in the near future but just wondering what was the original source material
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but a week or so ago Paramount announced Anchorman 2 would be their last release on 35mm, that all future releases would be digital only.
quote: Louis BornwasserThat's true... I remember a few years ago, the rock band Cheap Trick managed to get their latest album released on 8-track, believe it or not.
Also all it takes is ONE filmmaker who wants some film in his releases to negate "The Last!" from Paramount.
quote: Louis BornwasserI agree, it takes just one filmmaker. More than likely we are going to see "one-off" 35mm releases every once in a while. It does not cost a lot to put in 35mm for a release here and there of a movie, they will be companies who will specialize in leasing out the projectors for the short term. I think we will see it with the release of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. If someone thinks they can make money, then they will do it.
Also all it takes is ONE filmmaker who wants some film in his releases to negate "The Last!" from Paramount. Probably a negotiating tactic against the film supplier who just raised prices.
quote: Leo EnticknapIsn't it also true that Fuji and whatever is left of Kodak wouldn't be interested in such a niche market? Their factories and processes were all set up for enormous volumes and would obviously be running at enormous losses with current volumes.
If it were possible to produce color film and the chemistry needed to process it in small volumes and not make a loss, Fuji and whoever now owns the Agfa brand name wouldn't have quit the business in recent years.
quote: Marcel BirgelenFrom what I've read and been told, the cost, complexity and criticality of quality control in the production of dye coupler/chromogenic colour photographic emulsions, and the kit chemistry needed to process them, is such that the cost involved is approaching rocket science territory.
Isn't it also true that Fuji and whatever is left of Kodak wouldn't be interested in such a niche market? Their factories and processes were all set up for enormous volumes and would obviously be running at enormous losses with current volumes.
quote: Article on the Tate Gallery's WebsiteAnd that's the type of volume a niche market supplier is guessing it would need in order for production to be viable.
If you are able to produce an order for an amount over the size of two football fields (120 m long and 90 m wide) and have 2 Million Euros to spare for testing and are able to give us 2 years’ notice, we could look into this further
quote: Leo EnticknapFrom what I've been told by some film and photography "geeks", the major problem seems to be getting the raw materials at acceptable prices and indeed, getting the quality of the whole process right. For that, you need qualified people and time, hence money.
From what I've read and been told, the cost, complexity and criticality of quality control in the production of dye coupler/chromogenic colour photographic emulsions, and the kit chemistry needed to process them, is such that the cost involved is approaching rocket science territory.
quote: Mike BlakesleyOur booker was not informed by paramount about this either.
We receive most industry-related press releases, news articles and so on from NATO in emails, but I haven't gotten any actual word on this yet and our booker hasn't mentioned it either (although it makes no difference to us since we're digital here). I'm also curious where the news came from.
quote: Scott NorwoodYep, that's us.
For all of the hand-waving about VPFs, it seems that they either did not apply to many independents or that the terms were so bad that many chose not to sign up for them.
quote: Steve KrausOne of the last first run 35mm theatres in my area is having a very difficult time obtaining 35mm bookings, in some circumstances it is on a case by case basis. Paramount rejected bookings for both Anchorman 2 and Wolf of Wall Street at this location. Warner had no problem booking a 35mm of The Hobbit DOS but it was difficult at first and a three week commitment was mandatory.
Even if someone is offering prints your pickings will be slim. Of course you only have two screens to keep busy so your booker may be counting on still being able to find a couple of worthy titles for a while longer.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Steve KrausWhich is probably what they are actually doing, balancing the quotes for print runs that labs are giving them against their likely earning power in the remaining pool of 35mm houses that want to book and play them. As the cost of a print increases and the remaining potential revenue from 35mm houses diminishes, more and more of those film by film decisions will go against striking prints, sadly.
They could say something like "Making prints and how many is decided on a film by film basis...
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensWe're experiencing the same thing even in our repertory programming. Paramount in particular won't even consider letting us show a print if a DCP is available, regardless of the title and regardless of the quality of the DCP.
I know of a second run theatre that was running a 35mm print of "This is the end", the theatre installed a digital projector on a Friday after the movie had opened and on the following Sunday Colombia Pictures politely asked for their 35mm print to be broken down and a DCP was issued.
quote: Michael RileyThe last AMC movie theatre in Ontario Canada still runs 35mm. It is slated to close in 2014 once the lease is up. The theatre was running two digital 3D projectors but recently they removed them and two 35mm projectors were reinstalled at this location. The theatre is a second run house with the odd first run print.
Does Regal or AMC still operate locations that run 35mm?
quote:Really?! The Last Picture Show.
I know of a second run theatre that was running a 35mm print of "This is the end",
quote: Michael RileyAMC Loews Spring 10 in Houston is still film, but we're expecting it to close soon. There hasn't been an official notification or anything, but no one has put a dime into this theatre in years. Personally, I think they're just riding the lease out.
Does Regal or AMC still operate locations that run 35mm?
quote: Frank AngelThe theatre still gets the odd release in 35mm, nothing from Hollywood anymore. The rare 35mm is usually a foreign or independent film.
Really?! The Last Picture Show.
quote:
In a historic step for Hollywood, Paramount Pictures has become the first major studio to stop releasing movies on film in the United States.
Paramount recently notified theater owners that the Will Ferrell comedy “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues,” which opened in December, would be the last movie that would it would release on 35-millimeter film.
The studio’s Oscar-nominated film “The Wolf of Wall Street” from director Martin Scorsese is the first major studio film that was released all digitally, according to theater industry executives who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak about them.
The decision is significant because it is likely to encourage other studios to follow suit, accelerating the complete phase-out of film, possibly by the end of the year. That would mark the end of an era: film has been the medium for the motion picture industry for more than a century.
“It’s of huge significance,” said Jan-Christopher Horak, director of the UCLA Film & Television Archive. “For 120 years, film and 35 mm has been the format of choice for theatrical presentations. Now we’re seeing the end of that. I’m not shocked that it’s happened, but how quickly it has happened.”
A spokeswoman for Paramount was not available for comment.
Paramount has kept its decision under wraps, at least in Hollywood.
The reticence reflects the fact that no studio wants to be seen as the first to abandon film, which retains a cachet among some filmmakers. Some studios may also be reluctant to give up box-office revenue by bypassing theaters that can show only film. About 8% of U.S. movie theater screens are equipped to show movies only on film.
Other studios were expected to jump on the digital bandwagon first. 20th Century Fox sent a letter to exhibitors in 2011 saying it would stop distributing film “within the next year or two.” Disney issued a similar warning to theater operators. Last year, many industry watchers expected Lions Gate would make history with an all-digital November release of “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.”
Paramount’s move comes nearly a decade after studios began working with exhibitors to help finance the replacement of film projectors with digital systems, which substantially reduce the cost of delivering movie prints to theaters.
In addition to relying on digital hard drives, theaters are installing satellite systems to digitally beam movies into cinemas. That could significantly lower the cost of delivering a single print, to less than $100 from as much $2,000.
Digital technology also enables cinemas to screen higher-priced 3-D films and makes it easier for them to book and program entertainment.
As a result, large chains have moved quickly to embrace digital technology: Ninety-two percent of 40,045 screens in the U.S. have converted to digital, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners.
"After more than 15 years of work, the movie industry has completed its migration from film to digital technologies," said John Fithian, president of the trade group. "The fact that major studios are now distributing movies domestically only in digital signals an historic transition to a new era. Digital cinema provides great benefit to our patrons, in the quality of the presentation, in the flexibility of programming, in 3D, in alternative content, and in so many other ways."
The dwindling number of film screens has made releasing movies on 35 mm less attractive, especially given the rising cost of film prints for major movies. Film print costs have been rising rapidly as suppliers have scaled back production.
Last month, Technicolor, the French-owned film processing and post-production company, closed a film lab in Glendale. That lab had replaced a much larger facility at Universal Studios that employed 360 workers until it closed in 2011. Also last year, Technicolor closed its Pinewood film lab in Britain.
The march to digital also puts further pressure on some small-town community theaters that have been struggling to finance the purchase of $70,000 digital projectors.
Those theaters are at risk of going out of business if they can no longer obtain film prints of movies. As of last year, about 1,000 independent theaters had not transitioned to digital. Some are turning to their communities to raise funds for digital equipment.
"The Wolf of Wall Street” would seem an unlikely choice for an all-digital wide release given that movie was partially shot on film and that Scorsese is a a passionate advocate for film preservation. What's more, he directed a movie that was a homage to the early days of film, the 2011 3-D movie "Hugo."
A spokesman for Scorsese said the director was traveling and not available for comment.
quote:I disagree with this sentiment. With a 3 hour running time, a 35mm print for Wolf of Wall Street probably costs about 50% more than for a more typical 90-120 minute movie. Given that the remaining 35mm theatres account for such a small percentage of the total gross, it makes perfect sense to go all digital on a release that would be more expensive than normal for 35mm.
"The Wolf of Wall Street” would seem an unlikely choice for an all-digital wide release
quote: Bobby HendersonBobby, it makes no difference to the average person if the movie was shot on film or digital, the average person can't tell the difference. To the average person, a digital presentation means "better" even if it is not better.
no one can reliably predict how attitudes of the public can change. Right now enough of the general public still seems to think a ticket to the movies is worth the price.
quote: Justin HamakerWolf of Wall Street would be the perfect movie to go all digital, this is the type of movie that would open in wide release but in a smaller number of theatres and screens. I think it opened in something like 1900 locations.
I disagree with this sentiment. With a 3 hour running time, a 35mm print for Wolf of Wall Street probably costs about 50% more than for a more typical 90-120 minute movie. Given that the remaining 35mm theatres account for such a small percentage of the total gross, it makes perfect sense to go all digital on a release that would be more expensive than normal for 35mm
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensHe's talking about the price difference, not the image capture difference. You're right, nobody gives a hoot how a movie was shot, but when it starts costing on average of close to $10 a person to go to a show, more and more people might think twice about paying the cost vs. just waiting (what seems like) a couple of weeks for the video.
Bobby, it makes no difference to the average person if the movie was shot on film or digital, the average person can't tell the difference.
quote: Bobby HendersonYou are paranoid, 99% of moviegoers do not give a shit.
I think the general public must still have some illusion that major studio feature movies are using some kind of "secret sauce" not available to TV shows.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensParanoid? No. You might want to lighten up your tone from its personally insulting level to something more civil. I smell you trolling for another flame fest here.
You are paranoid, 99% of moviegoers do not give a shit.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensYou can see "digital" at home. For far less money. Netflix is digital. Amazon Prime is digital. HBO is digital. YouTube is digital. If it makes no difference why spend all that extra money to see basically the same thing at the movie theater? Most movies are mere 2K resolution, especially all the 3D ones. That's hardly any better than the 1080p you see on Blu-ray. Hell, a lot of people are still buying or renting DVDs. Or just doing the streaming thing.
Bobby, it makes no difference to the average person if the movie was shot on film or digital, the average person can't tell the difference. To the average person, a digital presentation means "better" even if it is not better.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensHollywood is pushing its luck in that regard too with all the sequels, remakes, franchise reboots and all the other predictable, derivative crap they keep producing. These days I hear more friends and coworkers talking about TV shows like Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad or Mad Men than Hollywood movies.
At the end of the day, all that really matters is if the movie is worth watching or not. If there is a movie that is worth watching, then the average person will go and pay to watch it.
quote: Justin HamakerThat's the price for just the basics. Many bigger city theaters have surpassed the $10 mark and are going well north of it for the base ticket price. Add in the surcharges for 3D, In Name Only IMAX or other luxury amenities and the price easily goes double the minimum wage or more. Some luxury screening rooms are charging more per ticket only than what it would cost to buy the Blu-ray.
I agree to a point about people being less willing to pay when ticket prices hit $10. Especially in places where the average ticket price is currently at $7-$8.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensHere we go again. Terry's points seem always to be cynical or abusive. "The average moviegoer can't tell the difference", and the above.
You are paranoid, 99% of moviegoers do not give a shit.
quote: Bobby HendersonBobby, at the end of the day, it is the content of the movie that brings people to the theatre, a movie can have all the quality projectors they want and all the 4K DCP files they want but if they get a bad movie or something that nobody wants to see then the customers will not show up.
You can see "digital" at home. For far less money. Netflix is digital. Amazon Prime is digital. HBO is digital. YouTube is digital. If it makes no difference why spend all that extra money to see basically the same thing at the movie theater? Most movies are mere 2K resolution, especially all the 3D ones. That's hardly any better than the 1080p you see on Blu-ray. Hell, a lot of people are still buying or renting DVDs. Or just doing the streaming thing.
quote: Bobby HendersonThey are not pushing any luck. Franchises, sequels and reboots have almost built in audiences and that is why they make them.
Hollywood is pushing its luck in that regard too with all the sequels, remakes, franchise reboots and all the other predictable, derivative crap they keep producing.
quote:Sure, but you also forget to mention that Iron 3, Skyfall, Hobbit 1 and 2, Avengers, etc etc are all $1 billion plus sequels or remakes. Lets not forget that Avatar almost grossed $3 billion and that was an original production.
These days I hear more friends and coworkers talking about TV shows like Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad or Mad Men than Hollywood movies.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensYou missed my point. Even with a huge hit like an "Avatar," far more people see it at home than will ever see it on the big screen. Sad but true. This number is growing due to the shrinking video window AND the perceived high cost of going to the movies. (It's really still pretty cheap entertainment, but fifty bucks is still fifty bucks.)
Mike, if the movie is good or worth watching people will pay and go see it.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensIt's a combination of both...
Bobby, at the end of the day, it is the content of the movie that brings people to the theatre, a movie can have all the quality projectors they want and all the 4K DCP files they want but if they get a bad movie or something that nobody wants to see then the customers will not show up.
quote: Scott JentschActually, from what I've been seeing, its more and more about selling popcorn
There's a danger in being stuck in thinking that showing movies is about the medium and not the content and the experience.
quote: Jim CassedyLet's not forget reason 3) More and more frequent upgrade costs to the digital projector technology will sooner or later make it unprofitable to run a theatre, even for the chains. (I'm just thinking sooner...)
I give the exhibition industry as we know it about another 15-20 years before
it collapses due to: 1) exhibitor indfference 2) aleternate sources of content delivery.
quote: Louis BornwasserIn that case, it's a case of back to the future. As a postgrad student in the mid-90s, I came across the results of a big survey that a big British theatre chain (Granada) did of its customers in 1946. One of the questions was "Why did you choose to come to this theatre, this evening?" (tick one). There were about 20 possible boxes to tick. The top ten had nothing whatsoever to do with the movie they'd come to see: they were things like comfortable seats, heating/air conditioning, program finishes in time for the last bus home, it's within walking distance from home, I like the organist, my friends come here so I do, etc. etc. Movie-related reasons (I want to see this specific movie, I like the star of the movie, I like movies in color, etc.) were all in the bottom ten.
Note that TITLES are rarely advertised and that marquees are gone; no profit in that.
quote: Louis BornwasserI can see the reason for this. There's no need for marquees when you have 20 or 25 movies playing. The trick is to get people to YOUR cinema and in the door, so all you need is a sign saying where you are. People have already been advertised to on TV and in the social media, and every big movie is playing basically everywhere, so there's no need for the multiple titles being on the marquees like there used to be.
Note that TITLES are rarely advertised and that marquees are gone; no profit in that. I'm surprised that trailers still exist.
quote: Leo EnticknapIt is interesting that Granada went on to run TV channels (all content without the "experience").
Movie-related reasons (I want to see this specific movie, I like the star of the movie, I like movies in color, etc.) were all in the bottom ten.
quote: Sam D. ChavezThat should be this forum's slogan.
This is not a forum for the average moviegoer
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensWhile this may more or less be true, it is not an attitude that people on this forum can afford to have. This statement basically boils down to "Just get the image on the screen and the sound heard. All that matters is that we have a good movie so no need to put any effort into making the presentation exceptional since people will pay to come watch it anyway."
At the end of the day, all that really matters is if the movie is worth watching or not. If there is a movie that is worth watching, then the average person will go and pay to watch it.
quote: Mike BlakesleyPart of the issue is that exhibitors (for as long as I can remember) for the most part don't do anything to market the experience. Sure, once you are there Regal has things like the small TV screen comparison but external marketing is not focused on things like that.
I wish there was a way to convince more of the dedicated couch sitters to give us a try.
quote: Lyle RomerThe 4K open is not going to make too much of a splash with moviegoers.
it's almost impossible to find movies being shown in 4k. You have to know what theatres have it, what DCPs are released in 4k and then make sure the auditorium doesn't have the Sony 4k with the adapter left on all the time.
quote: Lyle RomerI don't understand why anyone would want to open up a mile or so down the road to compete with price? The AMC/Regal branding will kill the independent.
With exhibition, I can't open a great theatre a mile down the road from a run of the mill Regal or AMC and compete on quality/price.
quote: Joe RediferI can agree with that.
While this may more or less be true, it is not an attitude that people on this forum can afford to have.
quote: Joe RediferI think there is something that has to be said about a theatre that has good presentation versus one that has an exceptional one, people are going to still come for a good presentation if you have the movie.
All that matters is that we have a good movie so no need to put any effort into making the presentation exceptional since people will pay to come watch it anyway."
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensIn a situation like that branding would be less important. If you were only a mile away and offered a TRULY superior experience you could beat them.
I don't understand why anyone would want to open up a mile or so down the road to compete with price? The AMC/Regal branding will kill the independent.
quote: Mike BlakesleyMovie theaters did lose a pretty big chunk of the population to TV as families were able to afford buying TV sets. It's likely a majority of Americans don't visit commercial movie theaters at all. But enough have been visiting movie theaters to keep them in operation. How much more of a percentage of the population can be lost to TV-only viewing habits before the movie theater industry runs into trouble?
Wow, some of you guys are pessimists. But, the movie industry has been dying ever since the TV was introduced, but somehow it keeps managing to stay alive.
quote: Scott JentschEven though movie theaters lost some of its audience to TV, theaters traditionally operated on a quality level completely above that of TV. Much bigger and better picture quality. That line of separation started to blur about 15 years ago, first with 5.1 surround sound getting into home theater and later HD video content. Theaters still operated with film. The average person couldn't set up a 35mm film projector in his house. It's only in the last few years that the differences in technology between home theater and the movie theater have almost vanished. Visually there's not much difference, at least not what the average person can notice, between 1080p Blu-ray and 2K D-cinema.
By and large, I do not think most people draw a distinction between film and digital cinema. They come for the movie. It's the theater's job to give them the best experience they will ever have watching that movie, which will keep them coming to the theater instead of waiting for it to show up on home video.
quote: Scott JentschThe music industry versus theaters is an apples to oranges comparison.
Sure, there are fans of the medium of film, just like there are fans of vinyl records, that have justifiable reasons and emotional reasons for doing so. However, the mainstream industry shift from vinyl and compact cassette did not kill the music industry, and even the shift from CD to downloads have not done so.
quote: Scott JentschCutting out the movie theaters is a big fantasy of some studio executives. Unfortunately I think such a ploy would back-fire on them and cause the big movie studios to collapse.
Public perception can be changed very easily and it wouldn't take much time (maybe a few years at most) for the studios to cut the theatrical middle man altogether and not have a net-negative effect.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
At the end of the day, all that really matters is if the movie is worth watching or not. If there is a movie that is worth watching, then the average person will go and pay to watch it.
quote: Joe RediferIsn't that IMAX's philosophy? (Sorry, couldn't resist.
This statement basically boils down to "Just get the image on the screen and the sound heard. All that matters is that we have a good movie so no need to put any effort into making the presentation exceptional since people will pay to come watch it anyway."
)
quote: Bobby HendersonActually, they're already both owned by Time/Warner, so, um... yes.
Can you imagine Warner Bros. becoming a subsidiary of HBO?
quote: Bobby HendersonYeah, great big fantasies, but what self respecting director would be aiming at a direct-to-rental release?
Cutting out the movie theaters is a big fantasy of some studio executives. Unfortunately I think such a ploy would back-fire on them and cause the big movie studios to collapse.
quote: Mark HadjuckiAt the risk of veering off-topic, in the '30s and '40s Granada positioned themselves as the luxury brand in British cinemagoing: ornate buildings, comfy seats, plush furnishings, HVAC in all auditoria and all classes of seating, the first in their towns to get the premium movies and ticket prices above average. This book, about the British cinema industry during WWII, includes an entertaining account from a London suburban Granada manager, who noted that everyone would flock to his theatre when the air raid sirens started, and shun the Odeon and the Gaumont, because if they were going to be obliterated by the Nazis, they wanted to go out in style!
It is interesting that Granada went on to run TV channels (all content without the "experience").
Their later businesses involved motorway services (1965 onward) who's only attraction to the customer was their convenient location (not pricing, quality or ambiance).
quote: Scott JentschI know the feeling, having ended up in a similar place with the infamous '99 Civic. Spent most of Sunday teaching myself how to replace wheel bearings, and it'll be the timing belt in the summer... And it's been in the family since new, so there's now an emotional dimension to this. Why I'm not feeling that emotional dimension so much with film I'm not sure.
My brother's truck is on its last legs, and has been for several years now. Through an unwillingness to spend the money to get a new(er) vehicle, he's poured a lot of his time and money into keeping that thing running. It should be taken out back and shot, but he continues to deny the inevitable and he's fully aware of it.
quote: Marcel BirgelenNone of them do. They want to have at least some kind of audience. A movie production wouldn't have much of that going from the camera straight to the video store shelf or placed among all the other movie image thumbnails on Netflix.
Yeah, great big fantasies, but what self respecting director would be aiming at a direct-to-rental release?
quote: Scott JentschBehind the Candelabra was a movie made for HBO. It didn't go direct to video rental. Nearly 30 million Americans subscribe to HBO. The premium network has aired Behind the Candelabra many times. It was on one of the HBO channels last night. I can't think of any movies that have won awards like Oscars or Golden Globes without playing in movie theaters and/or on a major TV network. Direct to disc shows don't generate that kind of attention.
Here's a few off the top of my head:
• Steven Soderbergh - directed "Behind the Candelabra" which won 2 Golden Globes
• Billy Bob Thornton - Fargo is going direct to TV
• David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
Martin Scorcese, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg have all been quoted in the last year or so as saying that the landscape of making and watching movies is changing. An entire generation is growing up watching and enjoying movies on their phones, tablets, and laptops. For that group, a 55" TV is a big screen!
quote: Scott JentschDon't you think price has something to do with those demographic numbers? The prices for tickets and snack counter items is getting pretty damned high for teens and young adults to afford, especially when you throw in the surcharges for 3D, premium big screens, etc. They're not making as much money as those in the older age ranges. Hell, I'm in a more affluent demographic and I see little if anything currently in release that I want to see in a theater. It could be May before I buy my next movie ticket.
This past weekend, the #1 movie (Ride Along) had an audience that was 54% over the age of 25. 85% of the audience for Jack Ryan over the age of 25. Lone Survivor was #1 last weekend, but 57% were 30 years of age or older. Wolf of Wall Street was 90% in the 25+ age group.
quote: Bobby HendersonI don't think most people would have a problem paying more for a better experience. When they see 3D, or a giant "XD" or whatever screen, they can see extra value for their dollar. I think where people REALLY feel ripped-off is the concession stand, where they are paying $5 or more for a soda they could get for 99¢ at a convenience store, or $9 or more for a popcorn. Adding to the problem, a "small" soda at some places is 32 ounces which is ridiculous. Then the cinema staff tries to "give the customer more value" by putting three ice cubes and filling the cup with soda, which will be warm before the end of the trailers.
The prices for tickets and snack counter items is getting pretty damned high for teens and young adults to afford, especially when you throw in the surcharges for 3D, premium big screens, etc.
quote: Scott JentschPoor Billy Bob Thornton, let us not forget that once he made it with Sling Blade, he then signed on to a bunch of movies such as Primary Colors, Pushing Tin, A Simple Plan, Armageddon, Intolerable Cruelty, and Bandits all of these movies were higher than normal budgets and some with some pretty big stars.
Billy Bob Thornton - Fargo is going direct to TV
quote: Scott JentschDavid Lynch, like Thornton and many others need to realize that perhaps their time making movies is done. Again, move on to TV.
David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
quote:Really, I enjoyed Mud, The Intouchables, Amour, Warm Bodies, Blue Jasmine, Philomena, Perks of a Wallflower, and my favorite of 2013 was The Way Way Back which was made for $5 million and grossed $22 million and played for 16 weeks straight as the only movie at a local art-house when released. These are all examples of small art house type films that are good and can make money. I saw all of these in theatres.
It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
quote: Mike BlakesleyThat's true. But the prices for a single ticket at some theaters are surpassing what one would pay for a new movie release on DVD at Wal-Mart; in some cases it's higher than the Blu-ray. I think that's a dangerous barrier.
I don't think most people would have a problem paying more for a better experience. When they see 3D, or a giant "XD" or whatever screen, they can see extra value for their dollar.
quote: Marcel BirgelenHelp me out here. Yes, successful directors have power. I understand that. But how much, really? Enough to dictate to the studios on this issue? Long term? Really? Especially at this stage? I think not even a snowball's chance in Hell. In fact, I expect it to accelerate right away, across the board.
Yeah, great big fantasies, but what self respecting director would be aiming at a direct-to-rental release?
quote: Scott JentschCable has a gazillion channels to fill with junk. And sorry, but this guy has lost not only me, but anybody I know, who once liked his movies. Yeah, sure, there are still a few masochists left that are able to watch Inland Empire from start to finish and still pretend to like it...
David Lynch - "And television is way more interesting than cinema now. It seems like the art-house has gone to cable."
quote: Jim HenkYou know what the interesting thing might be? By pushing hard for an all-digital distribution, those same studios might inadvertently have opened the floodgates. It might still take a while for that flood to arrive, but in the days of 35mm, the studios had some kind of exclusivity. They controlled most of the infrastructure necessary for a world wide release. With digital, anybody can produce a DCP, put it on a bunch of rather inexpensive disks and ship those around the globe. In the near future, those same DCPs will also be almost exclusively distributed digitally, lowering the bar even further.
I really can't see the studio heads ultimately thinking of even the directors as any more than spoiled employees with tempers, to be humored and ignored. They might cave on one-offs once in a great while, but this thread is about the studios stopping making 35mm prints. And I just don't see even mass widespread lobbying as having a single speck of influence. I seem to recall a bunch of the top directors doing exactly that about five years (or so) ago. They were politely heard and ignored. May have delayed things a year or so as a PR thing.
quote: Jim HenkMost of those majors aren't strapped for cash, they usually also know a lot of influential people in and around the business. If they need money to finance a production and the studios don't want to, they might as well find one or multiple investors to get the project done, some of those majors might even want to put some of their own cash on the line, it happened before and not just once... Also, sound stages can be rented outside of Hollywood, equipment can be rented and there are many special effect shops just begging for projects.
I don't even think they'd lose much sleep over losing the majors. So to repeat the question, does anybody think that anybody has any clout with these guys?
quote: Mike BlakesleyYou can also put your iPad in your face of course
And a lot smaller. The one difference they CAN NOT get rid of. That's what we need to promote.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. But right, most movies are still being shot for the BIG screen. For example, having seen the Blu-Ray of Gravity on a regularly sized TV just reminded me of what I'm missing. If I would've seen this movie the first time that way, I would have told myself: yeah, nice movie... next! The cinema experience is on a whole other level.quote: Bobby HendersonI equate all the forms of home video, whether it be cable, premium cable (HBO, etc.), DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, etc. It's all intended to be consumed in the home. As of Dec 31st, Netflix had 33.4 million streaming customers in the U.S. with an additional 2.25M in Q1-2014. Their disc-by-mail business is still 6.9M (which is decreasing). Amazon doesn't post their numbers for streaming, but I saw an estimate of 20M subs for Prime Instant Video (which is a subset of their streaming business, but probably a large percentage).
Behind the Candelabra was a movie made for HBO. It didn't go direct to video rental. Nearly 30 million Americans subscribe to HBO. The premium network has aired Behind the Candelabra many times. It was on one of the HBO channels last night. I can't think of any movies that have won awards like Oscars or Golden Globes without playing in movie theaters and/or on a major TV network. Direct to disc shows don't generate that kind of attention.
quote: Bobby HendersonGetting rid of $200M production budgets and $20M actor salaries may be an adjustment that is sorely needed. Time and time again, we are shown how ingenuity can beat money. As long as there are people that want to watch movies, there will be a market for people to make movies. It may be completely different from what has come before, but it will be there. Whether movie theaters will be involved is up for debate and probably will be for a long time.
But if the commercial movie theater is eliminated the movie industry as we know it will be eliminated. You won't have any 2 hour movies with $200 million production budgets or actors getting paid $20 million to star if the movie is only going to air on a TV network and/or go straight into Netflix' pool of rental titles. If a movie is made to premiere on a TV network there is no need for it to be cropped to 'scope aspect ratio. Everything will be 16x9 full frame HD.
quote: Bobby HendersonI wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was a major factor involved in the decision for a young person about where/when/how to watch a movie. Convenience is another. I'm sure that there are many more.
Don't you think price has something to do with those demographic numbers? The prices for tickets and snack counter items is getting pretty damned high for teens and young adults to afford, especially when you throw in the surcharges for 3D, premium big screens, etc. They're not making as much money as those in the older age ranges.
quote: Scott JentschNope.
Playing film vs. digital cinema should really be way down on the list of concerns for a movie theater. Sure, there is a capital investment involved, and that can be a huge issue for some operations, but that's the reality. If you want to show new releases, you have to have the equipment to do so. There are ways to recoup those costs, but it's going to take ingenuity, drive, determination, and a lot of effort to do so in some cases.
quote: Marcel BirgelenEven using video cameras it still costs a hell of a lot of money to make a money. This hipster notion that "digital" has democratized cinema is a lot of hooey.
You know what the interesting thing might be? By pushing hard for an all-digital distribution, those same studios might inadvertently have opened the floodgates. It might still take a while for that flood to arrive, but in the days of 35mm, the studios had some kind of exclusivity. They controlled most of the infrastructure necessary for a world wide release.
quote: Edward HavensMost movies are only 2K in native resolution. Running a 2K movie through a 4K projector doesn't make that movie 4K. And blowing up a 2K movie on a giant sized screen isn't necessarily a good thing either. It's a fixed pixel grid. The bigger you make it the less resolution you have. I've seen a lot of theaters tweaking the projectors a little out of focus to hide that pixel grid. So the movie ends up looking a little blurry and anything with type/graphics, such as the end credits, look like hell. If I watch the same movie months later on Blu-ray all of that stuff is nice and sharp.
One of the biggest arguments I keep seeing pop up about digital projection is that it blurs the line between home entertainment and cinema. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know a whole lot of people who have 1200+ square foot rooms with 480+ square foot screens devoted exclusively to motion picture entertainment in their homes capable of projecting 4k resolution footage and reproducing sound through six to sixty four channels.
quote: Louis BornwasserIt's going to be tough for them to do that in regards to immersive sound, although Auro is promoting its concept for home theater and gaming. Dolby hasn't taken a consumer version of Atmos off the table, although I'm sure any home version of Atmos would be far less elaborate (and probably really just a 9.1 system with Atmos labeling).
What ARE these projector companies going to do later after the cinemas are equipped? They are going to supply equal or better equipment to consumers.
quote: Scott JentschI wonder if that number includes Amazon Prime members -- which includes access to many movies on Prime Instant Video. I watched "Escape To Alcatraz" that way last night, but I'm sure there are probably lots of Prime members who only care about the two-day shipping and never watch any movies, especially if they already have Netflix or whatever.
Amazon doesn't post their numbers for streaming, but I saw an estimate of 20M subs for Prime Instant Video (which is a subset of their streaming business, but probably a large percentage).
quote: Scott JentschThose outlets may all be consumed in the home, but they are not the same. Premium cable networks, such as HBO, have a captive audience to the monthly tune of $12-$16 per month per subscriber. Networks like the FX Channel, AMC or TNT bring in a handsome amount of advertising dollars from commercials. Streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime might be in vogue with popular culture, but one could make the argument those places are where movies and TV shows go to die. The movies and TV shows are available "free" there after they've played out themselves on premium cable and commercial cable.
I equate all the forms of home video, whether it be cable, premium cable (HBO, etc.), DVD, Blu-ray, streaming, etc. It's all intended to be consumed in the home.
quote: Scott JentschIt still isn't bringing in enough money, much less have the growth potential, to make up for the loss of the commercial theatrical market.
Add in all the various ways that consumers can watch movies in their homes, and the alternate distribution channel for movies straight to home is sizeable, already in place, and not dependent upon any single vendor. I'm not saying it's the best way to watch a movie, but it's there, and with the up and coming generations of consumers, there's little if any resistance to watching movies that way.
quote: Scott JentschLow budget movies don't tend to bring in billion dollar worldwide grosses. I don't like it, but the big budget movies still remain the "tent poles" that keep the roofs maintained at the major Hollywood studios. In a TV-only movie distribution model there will be no big budget epic movies. It's just going to be TV for TV's sake with no separate movie industry remaining -at least not one that exists in the United States.
Getting rid of $200M production budgets and $20M actor salaries may be an adjustment that is sorely needed. Time and time again, we are shown how ingenuity can beat money.
quote: Scott JentschThe thing I'm complaining about is the power brokers who completely changed the fundamentals of the movie medium are being foolish enough to think that things are just going to magically go on the way they've gone for the past century when it's actually likely they've opened a Pandora's box that will never be shut. They've put a ball into play without having any idea how it is going to land.
Complaining about digital cinema and the death of film is like complaining about the weather. We can't do a thing about it. The wind is blowing, and all that can be done is to adjust our sails.
quote: Scott JentschI don't believe that at all. In a TV-only movie distribution model the only aspect ratio that will be permitted with new projects is 1.77:1. CinemaScope as we know it would be dead. Really, with "digital," it's kind of dead already.
While I'm a big fan of watching widescreen movies, I'm confident that cinematography will adjust to whatever medium is prevalent. Movie theaters are seemingly shifting to common-width 1.85:1 screens on new installs, so we may see this aspect ratio be used more and more regardless of any major change in the theatrical vs. home video market ratio.
quote: Mike BlakesleyThe free 2-day shipping is the main thing that got me on the hook with Amazon Prime. But, I'm catching up on the Justified TV series and may finally start checking out Sons of Anarchy years after they aired.
I watched "Escape To Alcatraz" that way last night, but I'm sure there are probably lots of Prime members who only care about the two-day shipping and never watch any movies, especially if they already have Netflix or whatever.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Bobby HendersonI think it might pick up a tad just because the commercial theatrical market goes away, but you're right. It won't be enough. Oh well...
It still isn't bringing in enough money, much less have the growth potential, to make up for the loss of the commercial theatrical market.
quote: Scott JentschIf they want to know how a "blockbuster event" would perform without spending a ton of money, they could already try it out with a much-anticipated episode of some popular TV show. Let's say, "The Big Bang Theory." They could make a two-hour "very special season finale" episode, and have it be available ONLY via pay-per-view for, say, two months. They could price it at, say, $10. Then put it on free cable later.
some day, the numbers will work out in favor of a studio trying a home release of a mainstream movie simultaneously or instead of a theatrical release.
quote:
Paramount Pictures to make some exceptions to all-digital policy
By Richard Verrier
January 28, 2014, 10:43 a.m.
Paramount Pictures reiterated to exhibitors this week its plans to embrace the digital format, but added that it would make exceptions for some movies.
"In keeping with the digital direction of the studio's exhibition partners, we have moved forward with the conversion to primarily digital projection," Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, wrote in a letter to exhibitors on Monday. "This resolve follows the successful release of Martin Scorsese's Academy Award-nominated film 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' and it is the first Paramount feature to be released nationwide entirely in digital."
Moore added: "Although we anticipate the majority of the studio's future releases to be executed in digital formats across the U.S., select exceptions will be made."
Among the exceptions will be Christopher Nolan's science fiction movie "Interstellar," which will be released in both film and digital formats when it opens nationwide Nov. 7, Moore wrote.
With the release of "The Wolf of Wall Street" last month, Paramount became the first major studio in Hollywood to distribute a wide-release movie entirely in a digital format.
The move is likely to encourage other studios to follow suit, accelerating a complete phase-out of film that could come by the end of the year.
Studios prefer digital distribution because it is much cheaper. Film prints cost as much as $2,000; a digital copy on disc usually costs less than $100. Eventually, these movies could be beamed into cinemas by satellite, saving even more on production and shipping costs.
Digital technology also enables theaters to screen higher-priced 3-D films and makes it easier for them to book and program entertainment.
quote:That's just stupid. By the time November comes around, any 35mm theaters left running without digital capability will be the super crappy ones with deplorable presentations.
Among the exceptions will be Christopher Nolan's science fiction movie "Interstellar," which will be released in both film and digital formats when it opens nationwide Nov. 7, Moore wrote.
quote: Brad Miller+1.
That's just stupid. By the time November comes around, any 35mm theaters left running without digital capability will be the super crappy ones with deplorable presentations.
I'll bet they change their mind come November and it doesn't actually happen. (After all I predicted a couple of years ago that in January 2014 the first studio would drop 35mm and I pegged that right down to the month.)
quote: Justin HamakerParamount and the chains will do what they did for The Master, the chains will install a limited amount (300 plus) of 35mm projectors in select theatres for a 4-6 week run.
What will be interesting with that Interstellar release is to see if Paramount allows any theatres which have side by side capabilities to have a 35mm print, rather than a digital.
quote: Mike BlakesleyThe chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.
The other thing is, these 35mm houses probably won't have projectionists anymore, so how will the prints be treated? If the prints get trashed, the 35mm people might get SUBstandard shows, which can't help the cause at all.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensReally? Reported here that the Odeon West End was showing the print they scratched for days.
The chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensA lot has changed in two years.
The chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.
quote: Justin HamakerDo those figures include arthouse/rep/cinematheque type places and part-time venues, or are they just for first-run mainstream houses? If those 3,000 screens include the arthouses (which were always going to carry on showing film for longer, either for ideological reasons or because they regularly show titles that are still only available on film), then the conversion is to all intents and purposes done.
Currently there are 36,929 digital screens. I didn't catch the actual number of total US screens, but it was just over 39,000. This means there are less than 3000 film screens left in the country (about 5% of total screens).
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensI think I posted about this in another thread some months back, but I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC and the print was absolutely crap. It was filled with dirt and scratches. Clearview owned it at the time and still does, but it's now run by BowTie, which bought the other remaining Clearview theaters.
The chains had no problem with the 70mm installs of The Master.
quote: Justin Hamaker"Obsolete location" and "milked of every dime" are contradictory. Any obsolete location still operated by a major exhibitor is because it loses less money than it would cost to buy out the lease. If there were dimes to be milked, they would upgrade and keep it open.
I know some of them are obsolete locations run by the major exhibitors which are just being milked for every last dime before closing.
quote:yes it was a rather odd interesting choice to film 'this' in 70mm - and yes the the DTS soundtrack was rather subdued [a comment, not an attack (eyeing Steve Guttag)]
I think I posted about this in another thread some months back, but I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC and the print was absolutely crap. It was filled with dirt and scratches. Clearview owned it at the time and still does, but it's now run by BowTie, which bought the other remaining Clearview theaters.
I don't know what happened. I don't know if it was a lab problem or whether the projectionist wasn't used to handling film, especially 70mm film, and dropped the film off the platter. And I didn't think the DTS soundtrack was any great shakes either.
It was really disappointing because I was so excited to see a new film in 70mm.
At that presentation, especially because the single-screen Ziegfeld has a reputation as a quality theatre and many premieres are held there, I realized that film presentation truly was over. Because the fact is that a digital presentation of that film would have been better than the 70mm presentation that I saw.
quote: Lyle RomerIt's a bit presumptuous to suggest what a chain might do with its business, unless you happen to work in that company's upper management.
"Obsolete location" and "milked of every dime" are contradictory. Any obsolete location still operated by a major exhibitor is because it loses less money than it would cost to buy out the lease. If there were dimes to be milked, they would upgrade and keep it open.
quote: Justin HamakerWhich supports your belief that their problem is getting hold of prints. If they're not playing any of the titles on this list, would typically have done so in the past, are still 35mm only and there is no booking availability reason why they shouldn't be playing these titles, the only reason left is that they can't play DCPs.
Mike, this theatre may not be considered a sub-run theatre...
quote: Daniel SWe were supposed to get a 35mm print, but our digital install started yesterday and our booker switched us to digital.
They definitely struck a few hundred 35mm prints for Transformers.
It has been 395 days since the last post.
quote: Buck WilsonIt totally isn't, I definitely want films to receive 35mm prints well into the future, the thing I think is bad is that switching major studio decisions like this without notifying us, their providers, makes me question Paramount's management if they can't keep their promises.
Matt you say that as if it's a bad thing
quote: Bobby HendersonBingo. Most of the cost with small print runs is in the initial film out and lab setup. If you have to make any prints at all (for archive, or to support a foreign distributor), then the incremental cost of running off a handful more for some 35mm screens in the USA is marginal.
The only logic I see with them striking these prints is having a little something extra to show for analog film-out archival backups of what is otherwise highly volatile, very temporary digital data. The few extra prints are a bone to throw to labs as a cursory way to keep them on life support -as if that will be enough.
quote: Daniel SchulzIf you filmout to an IN, yes, but if you filmout the prints directly? Plus, FotoKem's film business is such a boutique operation now that I'd guess that the cost of consumables (stock and chemistry) and staff time is a larger component of the per unit cost now than it was in the days when 500 to 1,000 prints of a mainstream release would be struck.
Bingo. Most of the cost with small print runs is in the initial film out and lab setup.