This is topic How does IMAX make money with so few prints? in forum Large Format 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=14;t=000017

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-24-2004, 09:32 PM:
 
Disney spent a lot of money on their Earth Day movie (I can't remember what it was called because it is IMAX and my mind stores any info about that format into the "boring" area of my brain). Anyway the movie is only on 17 or 18 screens from what I read. Denver is one of those screens. And it is sharing the screen with Nass 'tard 3D. It doesn't even get a full day's worth of showings.
[av=k]
Maybe IMAX movies would be better off presented as plays?

Also, why do most IMAX movies seem to love the hell outta time lapse so much?
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-24-2004, 09:49 PM:
 
I saw SACRED PLANET yesterday (I posted a review.) It is running here with NASCAR 3D. (SACRED PLANET is the better of the two, although you would not know this from SACRED's terrible trailer.)

I think this film is one that is going to play a long time. It is especially suited to science museums (I saw it in a commercial theatre). It has a timeless quality to it, so it could play equally well now or 3-4 years from now. In the long run, I think it will do very well. I don't think it was a very expensive film to make, probably using a very small crew and only native people.

I've seen a lot of IMAX films, and I don't recall time lapse being used that many times, other than CHRONOS. IMAX works best in long, slow takes that give the viewer a chance to take in the entire image. Slow movement is especially important in the 3-D films, as it takes the eyes awhile to adjust to each scene. The absolute WORST are dissolves in 3-D films...the eyes just go crazy.

From my experience, IMAX attendance is improving. I had more than a few "private screenings" of IMAX movies...many more people were in the audience at NASCAR and SACRED PLANET.

SACRED PLANET is a very well crafted film, and I recommend it.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-25-2004, 12:00 AM:
 
We've got three shows a day ... and opening weekend is as slow as any other. Our GM hates IMAX because, of course, he sees only bottom line numbers. "There are 50 people ALL DAY and the lamps cost THAT MUCH, times two, every four months!?!"

The movies themselves make money, I imagine, in long term. The prints last forever (okay, maybe not THAT long) and engagements are months at a time upon opening, and then prints circulate and are shown SOMEWHERE for years and years.

I love the format and the technology and the quality of presentation, so I by no means think it's boring. But then I think of the MOVIES ... L5: First City In Space, Alien Adventure, The IMAX Nutcracker ... and I want to shoot myself. Oh, the humanity.

My take is that IMAX revels in its own novelty. "Ooh, we have an IMAX! We're special!" And the theatre takes the monetary loss, in exchange for the attraction power. I like to think of it like a buffet in a Vegas hotel/casino ... most of the time it runs at a loss, and the substance isn't that good; but the casino, financially, makes up for it in abundance ... plus more people come to stay BECAUSE of it.

Now, Joe, if you're referring to how does IMAX, The Company, make money, I would say it's purely from the licensing fees and leasing agreements and "certification" programs, etc. If you were referring to grosses on individual IMAX films to the respective film studios, I'd say it's the exorbitant ticket prices compiled over years of runs, plus all those lovely group sales, school field trips, and package deals ... oh, and the COMPLETE LACK of marketing costs!

If you were talking about the theatre itself ... well, we don't make and it makes my manager think openly that I make too much money (when I'm actually one of the lowest paid [possible exaggeration] of the IMAX C.P.'s under Regal)
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2004, 01:17 AM:
 
Time lapse effects are kind of popular with IMAX movies. However, the time lapse effects I remember the most from a movie were the ones featured in "Baraka."

Sure, "Baraka" wasn't an IMAX movie; just well done 5-perf 70mm. It just seemed the shots picked out in "Baraka" for the computer-motion-controlled dolly / time lapse thing were a lot more dynamic than what I have seen with stuff in IMAX. The movie had a series of shots in Bryce Canyon and Monument Valley spanning from night to day in time lapse. The camera is moving on a dolly, panning around and actually showing the Earth's axis of rotation in how the star field above rotated. Very f**king cool. "Baraka" is certainly not a conventional dramatic movie and not a movie for everyone, but it is a film that should have played in 70mm in a lot more theaters than it did.
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-25-2004, 07:34 AM:
 
Joe, you forgot the 'twisting-helicopter-going-through-a-caynon-like-shot' in just about every IMAX movie.

One reason they make money is IMAX doesn't release their stuff to DVD 4 months after the initial release like 35mm. Regular 35mm product would make more money for theaters if the studios waited a year or so, but instead they use the theaters as little more than their advertising for the DVD sale.

I'm beginning to get the impression that a lot of large format films are actually low-buget. I'm not talking about just IMAX, but other LF stuff (8/70.) Rarely do you see effects shots, etc. I understand there are limitation with a LF camera, but generally they all look like 'drop the camera down and shoot.' I'm not saying NO effort goes into it; It must have been a huge pain in the ass to deal with a LF camera on top of Mt. Everest, but in LF, the nature and the people do the all the work.

I feel that all LF stuff should have DTS code to eliminate the hassle of timecode editing and slugging. The cost of a LF DTS player is minor considering the labor saved, but new stuff still comes with a DAT tape and sometimes even on 35mm mag. The actual post-production seems to be done by little post houses. If you call with a question, it's like, "Fred's not here today, he's at his other job fixing aircraft engines, call back tomorrow."
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-25-2004, 11:45 AM:
 
Another common IMAX shot is flying over the tops of mountains, seen many times since EVEREST.

Also common is flying over a flat land, only to have the bottom drop out when you get to a canyon area.

I'd love to see any of the -qatsi movies in large format. (Koyaanisqatsi (1983), Powaqqatsi (1988), Naqoyqatsi (2002))
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-25-2004, 03:00 PM:
 
The big issue with DTS timecode is that basically IMAX deosn't support it compared to there own proprietary soundsystem so it desn't get put on many 1570 prints (I have only seen one with it)
Any good old analogue mag rules

Most IMAX film recover there costs usually over a short period and are fairly high budget due to just the lab costs alone

And most of the institutional large format theatres are money makers for the institution they are part of
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2004, 07:05 PM:
 
To my knowledge there has only been one 15/70 print with DTS time code and that was a Beauty And The Beast. It was struck for the Imax Theatre in Spokane. I was told by Disney that they will only supports DTS or MAG for their 8/70 and 15/70 large format releases. If a Disney release shows up with another format its because someone else made the transfer.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-26-2004, 04:15 AM:
 
With Warner Bros. starting a DMR bandwagon, I imagine there will be a fresh surge of IMAX money-making. Apparently the day-and-date Matrix Revolutions numbers were impressive, given its 56 (or so) screen engagement. And with Attack Of The Clones already having the DMR treatment, I see absolutely NO conceivable reason why Episode III won't do it, too. I think it's going to be an exciting time for IMAX ... perhaps, only if it IS just novelty.

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

I'd love to see any of the -qatsi movies in large format. (Koyaanisqatsi (1983), Powaqqatsi (1988), Naqoyqatsi (2002))

---

quote: John Walsh

---

It must have been a huge pain in the ass to deal with a LF camera on top of Mt. Everest

---

What are you talking about? Those mountains were all CG ... and all that "snow" was just TOO perfect to be real!!! But seriously ...

We had a private rental several months back of Everest for Greg MacGillivray himself and a few "buddies". I overheard him talking afterwards, telling stories of producing that film. Apparently they used EVERY FRAME from the minute-and-a-half roll of film the took to the summit in the final movie.

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Any good old analogue mag rules

---

quote: Carl Martin

---

leo, you've had an inadvertent stroke of genius: imax porn!
and how about imax 3-d porn? it would beat that anaglyph crap from the '70's.

carl

---

I wouldn't want to be there for the money shot...

 

---

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 04-26-2004, 10:22 AM:
 
IMAXXX: A new view on love.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 04-26-2004, 01:31 PM:
 
ImaXXX ? Time to remake the "parachute" scene from Woody Allen's EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX (1972).
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-26-2004, 08:02 PM:
 
When we ran the system with the battery-powered flickering headsets, we didn't allow buttered popcorn or chips with the nacho cheese into the auditorium. People would touch the lenses and get them sticky.

Sorry, is that off topic?
 

---

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 04-27-2004, 02:02 PM:
 
IMAXXX? Although the thought of IMAX porn seems like a cool idea at first, there's certain things I don't really want to see 25' wide.

Also, on a less repulsive topic, I heard a story about a theater in France that uses those battery powered lcd glasses. In France, there's no regulations against smoking in a theater, and there's also and IMAX theater that has problems with people putting their cigarettes out on the lenses of the $300+/each glasses.
 

---

Posted by Jerry Beck II (Member # 2339) on 04-28-2004, 09:50 AM:
 
Being a production person (and projectionista), IMAX films are VERY hard to make. All of the sound (OK 90% of it anyway) is looped because the cameras are so $#@!ing noisy. All of the film loads are short, so there aren't alot of long running shots... Everything is bulky... like really bulky. Most Arriflex 35mm (and even old Mitchell 70mm) cameras are a one person affair. No one (sane)person carries around a (full-size) IMAX camera. There are very small load cameras for special shots i.e. the everest summit shots... But man, imaging reloading every 2 minutes, or less...

The reason they are plant-and-go shots so much is the 4 dudes (dudeettes?) that carried all that junk to the edge of the canyon are tired now and would like to take their break.

The real reason all movies are expensive to make... Unions. But that's another rant...

There are some great dolly shots and the obligatory photo-pod on the bottom of the F-16 through the grand canyon suckung your brains out your butt, however there are some new effects software things going on that are exciting. We just have to wait for Mr. MacG to make us some magic.

As for the show, well I've never had the privledge to run this system, so I can't comment. I will say this about that though:

In my experience in attending IMAX shows, the prints always seem to be top shelf, and if one goes south, they are generally replaced ASAP. At Cedar Point they had a print of Blue Planet that had developed great ugly emulsion-depth scratching (looked like giant green video dropouts) during the 2 days I stayed there.

The first day, the first show was OK, but as the day wore on you could see the print getting worse and worse.
The second day they ran a new(er) print, I thought that was pretty cool.

Coming from a dollar theater background where new/fresh prints were virtually un-heard of, it was pretty cool to me.

Side-note: We ran Dennis the Menace for nearly a full year. (really) Same print. The first 100' had a billion (perhaps an exaggeration) tape splices by the end. This is probably why Super Saver is gone...

Of course the 'ol Monee's just kept on chewin' them prints....

Jerry Beck II
jerry@vanguardprod.co m
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-29-2004, 01:31 AM:
 
Yes, in my experience, IMAX prints are rather quickly replaced when they become damaged such that presentation is compromised. Back in '98, the theatre I'm currently at (Irvine) had their Everest print scorched due to a hot-spot lamp (little green dancing dots on an IMAX print is an interesting sight!), and so my theatre-at-the-time (Ontario) had to sacrifice its Everest print (which didn't have as big an IMAX turnout ... the theatre, not the print) to the the Irvine location for the quick fix. And then the Ontario location had to wait for its new Everest, which was no time at all, really.

When we opened Matrix Revolutions, we had a film-path problem that caused an emulsion scratch (opening weekend, of course), which only was evident on-screen for about ten seconds as a green line, and only two reels worth (non-consecutive, of course) out of 38, as a thin black line. We had replacement reels (thank you, DKP 70mm) in about 24 hours.

No matter what company is running the IMAX theatre, it's really in IMAX Corporation's best interest to keep the brand name pristine, so presentation is of utmost importance. And in my experience, it is evident that they behave that way.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-29-2004, 02:29 AM:
 

quote: Rob Butler

---

In France, there's no regulations against smoking in a theater...

---

Really? I'd have thought that the European Union would have banned that by now. However, the French take no notice of EU decisions apart from making sure that they're imposed on the British! I no of no UK cinema whatsoever that still allows smoking, and have always believed that this must be a legal requirement. After all, there are virtually no other leisure industry premises which ban it - you would be hard pressed to find a bar or restaurant with a decent no smoking area in this country, and most are gas chambers.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-29-2004, 03:35 AM:
 
for what it's worth, the paris theater i attended last august prohibited smoking. i don't know whether that was theater policy or law, or how much difference it would make anyways. at least in this instance, the rule was respected.

in general (train stations, etc.) people would smoke openly right under no smoking signs with impunity. if i tried to tell people they couldn't, i was the asshole. pretty frustrating.

carl
 

---

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 04-29-2004, 03:34 PM:
 
I've never personally been to france, so I don't know the validity of the story, just that the person that told it to me usually doesn't make stuff like that up. I also don't know when he noticed this so it could have been 10+ years ago, and the people could have been smoking illegally, reguardless, I thought is was a funny story.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 04-30-2004, 12:09 PM:
 
I've been under the impression that IMAX theaters have to buy their own prints. Is that true?
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-30-2004, 01:15 PM:
 
Generally the end-user will buy their prints but this is countered by low film-rental fees compared to conventional 35mm. There is also a market for used prints or leasing plans, depending on the producer.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-30-2004, 02:20 PM:
 
No, they don't all buy their own prints. Many, many 8/70 and 15/70 prints are available directly from the producer just as regular 35mm prints would be leased. There are some locations that do buy prints just to make their scheduling a bit easier where multiple programs are constantly changing such as Gords Theatre in Toronto. So far I have not heard of a film in which a large format exhibitor is required to purchase a print to be able to exhibit it. Many locations do have to agree to lengthy runs(leases) though, sometimes as long as six months with guaranteed runs X number of times a week after the first run lease period.

Owning a print or not does not necessarily guarantee you cheaper rental rates either. Imax has what they call A, B, C, and D catagory films with A bookings being the newest and most expensive in cost to exhibit...last I heard was 90% to Imax plus the percentages per seat on top of that and other totally rediclous Imax fringe benefit royalties that must be paid them. The C Grade stuff comprises most of the Imax films and the percentages are actually in your favor I believe Imax gets 40% and you get 60% and you'll find that these films are the more frequently exhibited ones. Few if any places exhibit D catagory stuff as its the least popular and sometimes extremely boring films. Note that I was given these catagories and figures several years ago by a lady at Imax that I talked to. It is more than likely they may have changed by now. Adam, Gord, can you clarify on the rental catagories as its stands now?? Thanks!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-30-2004, 10:36 PM:
 
Almost all new 15/70 titles you pay for the print and then a fixed amount per seat occupied per show
Older titles often the distrib will throw in a used print
PS just because you bought the print doesn't mean you own it when the exhibition contract expires it has to be returned to the distributor at your expense
 

---