This is topic Why Is Business Down? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000064
Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 09-03-2000, 11:34 PM:
 
At various times in numerous different forums the fact that business this summer has been rather soft has been mentioned.

The natural question of course is Why? Is it the product, competition from other leisure time activities, prices or what?

There were NO mega blockbusters, ie: No Titanics or even Sixth Senses! However there were a good number of films that did over $100,000,000 which in the past was considered a blockbuster or at least a smash hit.

Each week I continue to see accounts that state business was down 15%, 25%, 30% from the same period last year. Now let's consider the fact that ticket prices went up a good amount this past year...hefty hikes both before the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holidays at the end of last year and again before the summer this year. Putting the largest markets aside (NY, LA etc.)the average adult ticket price in most markets appears to be in the $7.00 range. The highest in my area are at the Regals with $7.25. Go just 50 miles east toward NY in mid New Jersey and you get $8.00 or more.

When business is compared for the present year against the previous it is by box office gross. I never hear anything said about admissions. Therefore if gross sales are down by 15% (or whatever) just think what that means in admissions. We now have more screens then ever, while at the same time less and less people going. No wonder the big guys are in such trouble...the pieces of the pie continue to get smaller.

My 35 years in this business has proven to me that whenever you put your price up,less people buy tickets. When you put your prices down, more people buy tickets. I have adjusted my ticket prices at many of my theatres over all those years numerous times in both directions...and EVERY time it follows that scenario. EVERY TIME! Maybe we are pricing ourselves out of business?

I believe that the megaplex may very well be hurting business more then it is helping it. At least for the exhibitor. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference in the overall grosses for most pictures, just a decline for per screen or per location grosses. For the movies in general, the same number of people going, but now divided by 37,000 rather then 25,000 screens, or on a per picture basis roughly the same people now going to see a given film on 3000 screens rather then 1500 screens as was the case not even ten years ago. Add to that the fact that with so many screens everyone who wants to see a picture can get in to see it whenever they want...first day, first week! Seldom do we hear of sellouts anymore. This creates two problems for exhibitors. The films may do about the same business overall, but now they get the same gross in two or three weeks in what took five or six, or even eight weeks or more a few years ago. The pictures are played out earlier which means more product is needed to keep screens covered profitably. And of course most of that gross is now brought in when the terms are at their highest...70 & 60%. No long runs when the exhibitor can do decent business at a 35% film rental.

Now here is the big one. The one that I think is really hurting business. One of the great aspects of the multiplex was the availability of a large choice of product for the consumer. If a moviegoer went to see something and it was sold out, they would make another selection and often see another film that in many cases they would not go to see. This happened often before pictures were run on 2 or 3 screens. Most people would not leave a multiplex when turned away from their first choice...and this helped the grosses of many lesser pictures. This seldom happens any longer in the megaplex as hardly no one is turned away. Therefore the secondary product now suffers for that, and of course the industry as a whole as well.

Let's review:
Ticket prices are up, admissions are down.
Runs are shorter due to too many screens, therefore film percentages are higher.
Sellouts are rare, therefore no overflow to help other product.

What was the question again...Why Is Business Down? Hmmmmm


 

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 09-04-2000, 10:20 AM:
 
Let see......

The average length of time from date of intital theatrical to video release is now about five (5) months..... then three (3) months later (or a total of about eight (8) months from initial release) you can purchase the same video for 8 dollars (the cost of first run movie ticket). Why should anyone go the movies?

In the 50's when the theater business was first threatened by televsion, theater owners turned to the 'Gimmick' of such things as Cinerama & 3D to lure patrons back into theaters. Like most Gimmicks these things quickly wore off. Today the 'Gimmick' is the megaplex. Like Cinerama & 3D it worked for a short while but the Gimmick is wearing thin.

 

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 09-04-2000, 10:33 AM:
 
Bring 70mm back!
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-04-2000, 11:06 AM:
 
But what's the gimmick about a megaplex? Most of them have a couple of decent-size screens and a bunch of shoeboxes. Since (as far as I know) a given moviegoer can only watch one film in one auditorium at once, the gimmick only works if the movie that he wants to see is showing on one of the one or two big screens. Otherwise, going to most megaplexes is a total waste of money...the "experience" would be better in a decent single-screen subrun house (and cheaper, too).
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 09-04-2000, 11:18 AM:
 
We just closed our Skyline Drive-in theater for the season last night (we had over 200 cars last night) and we had a good season. While standing at the boxoffice at various times during the season I heard the same comments from many customers, "We can't afford to go to the multi and mega-plexes, it's just too expensive for us."

I think high ticket prices AND high concession prices at the mega plexes are keeping people away. After all, somebody has to pay for those 20 million dollar buildings so it might as well be the customer!
 

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 09-04-2000, 01:30 PM:
 
Hmm.. Buisness at my theatre is up compared to last year..

If you get right down to it, movies are not that expensive. Compare movie prices to such things as professional sports tickets, live theatre tickets, etc.. Movies are cheap..

I think what is hurting the buisness is that a lot of what hollywood is putting out is not very good.
 

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-04-2000, 02:18 PM:
 
I think the main problem, as Jim just said, is the lack of better movies this summer. It's bad when I (who loves to see movies in theatres) check out what's playing and can't find a single movie I want to see that I haven't already seen.

A couple of nights ago, as I posted in the Movie Reviews forum, I went to see "Whipped". I went to the first showing on opening night (Friday of Labor Day weekend) and there were 6 people there including me at the 7:15 showing in a large auditoriums that I've seen sold out before. That's pitiful! There aren't any movies generating much excitement these days. To not have any movies creating a lot of excitement on the long Labor Day Weekend is really going to hurt the industry.

I have heard many complaints about movie tickets going up. Tickets are at least 7 dollars everywhere in Huntsville, and losing our second-run theatres back in May caused some resentment because people can no longer wait for the movies to hit the second-run theatres to see them for $2.50 .

I think allocating 25 or 33 percent of auditoriums in the megaplexes having 12 or more screens for second-run movies at lower admission prices would help business. For example, in our Madison Square 12, using 4 of the smaller auditoriums for second-runs would draw more people in than would showing 4 first-run movies, especially with the quality of movies nowadays.



 

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-04-2000, 05:47 PM:
 
Only problem with that Evan is that you'd have to post an usher at every door to make sure people aren't buying the cheapos and sneaking inot first run. I guess it depends how your theatre is set up. Maybe you could have a wing for second run and just have a dooperson stationed there.
 
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-04-2000, 10:45 PM:
 
The multis is this area are at $7.50 and don't seem to have hurt all summer. Our sub run at $1.99 has been great too--over 700 for each Sat. & Sun. eve. show. Second run in a few auditoriums in the multiplexes would probably put us out of business.
 
Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 09-05-2000, 12:11 AM:
 
My theatre, in the welfare range $1 matinee and $1.75 evening, did excellent this weekend. When I left on Sunday afternoon, they had over 8,000 people through the door since Friday. My manager was expecting over 12,000 for the weekend. Normally, the State Fair takes a big chunk of business from us, not this year.

I talked to 4 managers of first run theatres in various locations in California, not one of them was busy.

Combination of crappy movies, and people don't want to pay full price for crappy movies in my opinion.
 

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 09-05-2000, 08:26 AM:
 
Allow me to speak as a movie consumer. I live within 4 miles of 48 screens. There is an Imax locally. I went to fewer films this summer than ever before. Money is not the problem here...there just wasn't anything I really wanted to see. I fell asleep in X-Men and The Cell. Perfect Storm was very disappointing. Even Chicken Run, the film I most wanted to see, was a bit lacking. There was no film that really captured my interest. Of the major films, I actually enjoyed BATTLEFIELD EARTH the most, as it was so gloriously bad.

My favorite movie experiences this summer were seeing North By Northwest at a 3,000 seat restored movie palace, Theif Of Bagdhad, a silent film at the same place, and, believe it or not, the 1966 version of BATMAN at the local art museum.

With Batman, we saw vintage trailers, children in Batman costumes, and a pretty fair print of the film. The audience got involved in the film and everyone had a great time.

Sure would like to have that kind of experience at the multiplex.

I was also disappointed that my favorite local theatre, a Marcus 16-plex, seems to be losing its edge. They stopped using the curtains and the simple light show before the picture to show ads. What made this bad is that they didn't have much business yet, so most of the ads were things like "Buy more popcorn." The sound systems seem to lack impact too. No one seemed to care anymore. Tis a pity.

So, Mr. Big Time Cinema Executive, show me a good film and a good time, and I'll spend the money to go to your theatre. But, remember, for less than the price of 2 tickets, I can purchase a wonderful version of North by Northwest on DVD, and enjoy it as many times as I want.

Mark L.

 

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-05-2000, 10:29 AM:
 
When I started working at a movie theatre in the early 1980s, the home video world was just getting started. If a customer walked out after a lousy movie (and they were disappointed that they actually had to pay $3 to watch that nonsense), I often had to listen to their complaints. (I guess that, as a movie theatre usher, I somehow represented the industry and, since I was the first industry person that the patron saw after the movie, they often felt the need to complain to me about their own poor choice to see that movie.)

So, anyhow, many of these folks told me things like, "These theatres are going to go out of business because I could rent a movie or watch one on cable TV and it'd be tons better than this." There were plenty of people who thought that in the early 1980s but it didn't happen... until...

Now, finally, there's "Home Theatre" equipment which rivals the sound available in theatres and, while the picture at home can't compare to the theatre, at least there's consistency, the picture is never out of frame, it's never scratched, etc. Could it be that Home Theatre has finally reached a level of quality which will make those 20 year-old predictions come true? I mean, were the predictions true but they just weren't timed correctly?
 

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-05-2000, 11:00 AM:
 
I don't know...I still believe that there is a lot more to a good (emphasis on "good") theatre experience than simple picture and sound quality (which should be assumed to be excellent).

The social experience is a big deal and probably plays a large part in keeping some of the dumpier theatres open. There's also the scale of a real theatre which simply cannot be duplicated in a home environment. Even bad or mediocre movies can be fun on a big screen with a good audience.

I'm fairly convinced that there will always be a market for people who want to go "out" to see filmed entertainment (no one is going to invite his date to come over to his living room...), though I agree that it may not be as large as it once was.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-05-2000, 12:02 PM:
 
I agree with Scott that the experience of "going out" to the movies and enjoying a film with an audience will keep theatres a part of our lives.

BUT...presentation quality MUST be better than anything you can have at home. Digital Cinema advertising proclaims "See the Movie, Not the film", implying that dirt, scratches and unsteadiness are inherent to film. Participants on Film-Tech know that "Film Done Right" isn't dirty, damaged, unsteady or dim, and do all they can to provide the superior presentation quality that film is capable of.

IMHO, until Digital Cinema can provide significantly more resolution than a laptop computer or home theatre, and offers true cost savings shared by all, "Film Done Right" in a theatre is still the best entertainment value.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-05-2000, 01:00 PM:
 
John,

What can be done about the horrid unsteadiness problem at the labs today? Specifically Deluxe Hollywood's prints. That rhythmic vertical "beat" on their prints is incredibly annoying. Horizontal weave has never been much of an issue, fortunately.

The lack of shaking is the one impressive part of digital cinema.
 

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-05-2000, 01:11 PM:
 
About home theatres hurting theatre business:

I believe that if large screens for home become affordable, theatres will be hurting. At my home, I often have movie get-together nights and have a group of say, 5 friends over. We watch movies on DVD or Laserdisc, most of which are in Dolby Digital 5.1 and sometimes DTS 5.1 . I have a Yamaha DSP-A1 receiver that can decode DTS and Dolby Digital. My main speakers are JBL HP-520s, my surrounds are Infinity RS-5s, and the center is an Infinity CC3. They're not all the same brand, but nearly every person who comes to my house to watch movies tells me that my system sounds better than any theatre they've been in. Some of my friends tell me they prefer watching movies on DVD or Laserdisc at my house to going to the theatre, which I find both amusing and sad at the same time.

The weak link in the home theatre now is the screen. I'm still using a 32" Sony XBR CRT. It's a terrible time to buy a new TV, though, because the ones that are really good are too expensive, while the cheaper ones have HDTV resolution but are 4:3 rather than 16:9, or don't really support all of the formats (some convert everything to 1080i). In a couple of years, I'd hope that there will some sort of affordable screen that can be placed in the front of my living room. Even though 740 by 480 does not sound like much resolution, DVD movies can sometimes look better than in theatres because theatres often have a lot of problems, such as misframing, focus problems, scratches, insufficient screen brightness, jitter, etc, that a home theatre would typically would not have.

I love watching movies in theatres, but nearly every time I go, there are elements of the environment that detract from the experience, such as crying babies and kids, cell phones, and seat kickers. I really wish theatre managers would just stop allowing kids under the age of 5 and not let people in if they have a cell phone on them. Seat kickers are harder to control because most people don't realize that by resting their feet on the back of the chair in front of them that they're sending vibrations through the entire next row.

For many movies, I prefer to go during the week when attendance is at a minimum. Sometimes, I have the entire auditorium to myself as a result. For comedies, however, I tend to like to go on Friday or Saturday night, since a crowd seems to make those better.

Evans



 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-05-2000, 01:51 PM:
 
Brad:

IMHO, you have to take unsteadiness on a case-by-case, feature-by-feature basis, and not make a blanket statement about any particular lab (e.g., many on this forum felt "Sixth Sense" release prints were unsteady, and they were not done by Deluxe). Also, several labs may be involved in the production of a movie, with some doing the "front end" work, others doing the effects, and still others doing the release printing.

Kodak is partnering with the labs and equipment manufacturers to improve printing technology.

One known factor is that continuous contact printers are optimized for printing a "short pitch" (BH-1866 perforation having a pitch of 0.1866 inches) negative to a "long pitch" (KS-1870 perforation having a pitch of 0.1870 inches) print stock. All camera originals are short pitch and all release prints are long pitch, so contact printing produces good steadiness and minimal slippage for direct prints. Unsteadiness often creeps in when continuous contact printing is used for the intermediate stages (master positives and duplicate negatives), because slippage occurs when the short-to-long pitch printing relationship cannot be maintained. Much slower pin registered printing should be used for at least one of these intermediate stages, but production time constraints often preclude it.

Irwin Young of DuArt labs presented an excellent technical paper on the subject at an SMPTE conference a few years ago. The Kodak web site also has a discussion of the relationship of film dimensions and printing technology:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizes.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml

There is also an excellent discussion on this very subject in the section "Continuous Contact Printers" of the book "Motion Picture Film Processing" by Dominic Case of Atlab in Australia (Focal Press Media Manual 1990, ISBN 0-240-51243-X, TR886.2, pages 100-101).

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com


 

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-05-2000, 02:19 PM:
 
If home theatre ever becomes the primary means for movie viewing you are going to see DVD prices go upwards of $50. Like Evan said, one person can buy and several can watch-nothing illegal about that. I think once the DVD prices get cranked up there people will migrate back to the few theatres that will be left. Wether the cycle will continue-boom and bust-for theatres I don't know.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-05-2000, 02:37 PM:
 
IMHO, seeing a movie in a theatre is still a better value than buying/renting DVDs and maintaining a high-end home theatre installation. Figure at least a few thousand dollars for a large screen home video installation with quality 5.1 sound, and pro-rate that expense in addition to the cost of the DVDs.

For example, a $5000 home theatre system with an anticipated life of 5 years costs about $1000 per year. If you watch one new movie a week, that's about $20 per show to pay for the equipment, plus the cost of buying or renting the DVD. I can buy quite a few theatre tickets for $1000-plus a year. And the vast majority of working families cannot afford a $5000 home theatre system anyway, not that they wouldn't like to own one.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com


 

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-05-2000, 03:12 PM:
 
I'll ask John the obvious question here: why not make intermediate printing elements on short-pitch stock?

I agree that, compared with other forms of entertainment, movies are still a good value. Tickets to sporting events go for $30-50 each and concessions are even more expensive than those at movie theatres. Tickets to live theatrical performances and musical concerts often go in the range of $50-100 each in major markets. Yes, the cost of taking a familiy of four to a movie is nontrivial, but it is relatively inexpensive compared with other out-of-the-home entertainment options.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-05-2000, 05:51 PM:
 
But keep in mind we're comparing apples to oranges. Sporting events and live theatre are:
1) Primarily in larger cities where the market can support them
2) More of a 'once in a while' event

Idealy people would be going to the movies every week or two. Sporting events and theatre perfomances-except for a small majority of die hard fans-are attending once in a while. It is also important to note the seasonal nature of sports and even theater.
 

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-05-2000, 06:17 PM:
 
Since I watch literally EVERY movie, even the really bad ones, that is shown at the theaters I work at, I can say I STILL get a lot of amazement at how good my home system is. I've been buying laserdiscs for a long time and have been impressed with DVD too; in fact I joke now that the only reason I watch a movie in the theater is to see if it's good enough to buy the DVD! While the right audience can enhance the overall mood of a film, I've still had too many movies ruined by people who just won't shut the hell up! I tend to watch movies at the theater on weekday afternoons when there's very few people there because of that, even better is when we get to run private staff showings Thursday nights. I'll admit I enjoyed "The In-Crowd" a lot more though because the other 4 people in the theater were laughing at how stupid it was!
I've always believed that if they want to make some kind of special effort to get more people to go to the theaters more often, they have to bring back the BIG screens. Too many of the new theaters being built are screening-room quality at best, which is still nice but when you have a setup at home that's almost as good only a BIG screen is going to give you enough reason to go out. I wish they would at least change the original big dome-shaped Century theaters in Sacramento back to the way they used to be, over 20 years ago they were both TWINNED and look extremely awkward; I wouldn't watch a movie there even for free but I might go see almost anything if they still had the BIG screens!
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-05-2000, 06:36 PM:
 
I know that most people do not want to spend the money on a home theatre setup, but to some people, it's a hobby. I guess the thing I really like about it is being able to play any movie I have, or any song I have any time I feel like it. If I want to have a party and show any of the Star Wars movies, for example, I can do it at any time, or watch them myself, or watch just one particular scene, anytime. If I miss a line of dialogue in any movie, I can skip right back to it again. With DVD, I can turn on subtitles if I can't understand the dialogue. In a movie theatre, if I miss something, it's gone.

Evans



 

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-05-2000, 11:48 PM:
 
It's funny how I look at movies now. I mean, I go to the theatre, not always expecting a good presentation, but I see the film as an advertisement for the DVD. If I like what I see in the theatre, I'll decide to get the DVD.

There's no way I can justify the time and money it would take to see a movie 4 or 5 times (or more) in the theatre anymore, and I'd rather have the disc for multiple viewing anyway.

Are the studios looking at theatres as a way to promote home video sales? Is that why they seem to offer so little support to theatres?
 

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 09-06-2000, 12:39 AM:
 
Okay everyone, make friends again!!

People I once knew are turning over in their graves!!

As happens every so often in history, home technology is catching up to theatres!

Video tape was once lamnented as the death of theatres!! As it turns out, it only renewed the interest in movies. Grosses soured!

Product sucked this year, plain and simple.

Assume that you are Gordon's daughter here for a minute! (No offense, Gord)

I just bet that his rec room has the latest technology available in the free world!!!

Do we really want to watch a movie with our parents? Or do we want to go out?

Me? I want to go out!!! (Again, no offense to Gordon).

We are (and always have been) at the mercy of the product provided to us.

I would rather play "ET" in mono than "The Art Of War" in Dolby EX!

Exhibition (collectively) is paying tons of money to be current. Manufacturers are turning out respectable equipment!

The movies just suck! I'm sorry, I try to be eloquent, but it's true.

After all the inventories and print moves on a Thursday night, I can remember being excited about viewing the new film.

Now, I just think about going to bed. They usually start the films before I am finished.

You do what you can, but in the end, you need product.

BRAD!! We need to start a "Running Screen Play!!"

Expand this sight to include screen writers!!

Regal and some of the other majors actually had a decent formula going! Unfortunately, they relied on the "un-ending" stream of product to draw patrons.

Cows do fart!!! Should one do so, I am equipped to play it back perfectly! Whether it be recorded in SRD, or DTS, if you hear it here, you will hear as the cow intended!!

A decent movie would be good too.

Russ



 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-06-2000, 07:45 AM:
 
Scott:

Continuous contact printers are designed to print short pitch (BH-1866) negatives to long pitch (KS-1870)prints. I can print a short pitch (BH-1866) camera negative to a long pitch (DH-1870) master positive, but then what? Contact printing long pitch originals is a no-no.

Printing that long pitch (DH-1870) master positive to a short pitch (BH-1866) duplicate negative should be done on a slow pin-registered printer. But in many cases, time constraints force labs to contact print short pitch to short pitch, which is where slippage and unsteadiness can creep in. The final release printing is a short pitch (BH-1866) duplicate negative printed onto long pitch (KS-1870) print film, so slippage is minimal.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com


 

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 09-06-2000, 07:46 AM:
 
Prices: too high for the quality of the product.
Presentation: usually low in quality for the price.
Public: usually lower in quality when compared to the presentation.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 09-06-2000, 11:45 AM:
 
Looking past ticket prices, concession prices, or even (gasp) film presentation, the single most determining factor business wise is, with out a doubt, the quality of the movie that is being shown on the screen. There are just too many movies playing that in no way are worth the cost of admission let alone when you add the costs of extras like concession items. There is just too many cheaper forms of entertainment available out there.
Too many times, I have left a pre-screening of a feature thankful that I didn't have to pay to see that crap and in some extreme cases, upset that I just threw away two hours of my life. There are many times where I feel sorry for the person who shells out $7.25 to see certin movies espically on opening weekends before word of mouth can get out as to the quality and content of a feature. Let the buyer beware.
The biggest problem as I see it is that there is little to no incentive for Hollywood to make good movies. Someone in anouther forum compared our industry to the fast food industry and I am inclined to agree. Film company's produce movies as fast as they possibly can, hype the hell out of them so that can have a huge opening, take their their big 2 or 3 week cut and then move on to the next "blockbuster". Who cares if the movie sucked? They got their money and since they have no real direct contact with the customers, we the exhibitors are left "holding the bag" having to apologize for the content of the movie, for the price of the movie (Yea that our fault not Tom Cruse's 20 million fee), price of concession, etc.
It all boils down to this, just how many times can moviegoers get burned before they decide that it's not worth going anymore? I for one wouldn't go to the movies very often if I had to pay for them.

 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-06-2000, 02:35 PM:
 
Another thing to remember though is that the public is unpredictable. 1992 was regarded as a disappointment businesswise too, but it rebounded by the next year. I've totally given up predicting which movies are going to do well and which will bomb; I was willing to bet money that "Titanic" would be a huge failure and it ended up being one of the top-grossing films of all time! I still say if the public had any taste, "Titanic" would have bombed at least as much as "The Postman" and "Battlefield Earth"
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 09-07-2000, 06:54 AM:
 
Yea but the PostMan didn't have 12 year old tinnie-boppers watching it 20 times.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-08-2000, 10:47 PM:
 
But "Titanic" was long and boring! Well really, long movies usually don't do that well, much less have people see them 20 times. Other than that Leonardo guy (who was much better in 1993's "This Boy's Life" which went virtually ignored the 2 weeks I ran it) what's there to interest teeny-boppers? It took place about 80 YEARS ago, fergawdssakes!! That's the perfect formula for a bomb, but not only does this do well, but becomes one of the biggest grossers of all time?! Kate Winslet certainly deserved that Breast Actress award though
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-08-2000, 11:23 PM:
 
Sounds like another "I wish I was Leo, but since I'm not and am jealous, will hate him" senario. I knew Titanic would be in the top 50 of all time. Then when I ran the first trade screening, I knew it would be in the top 10. Little did I know it would be THE biggest box office hit of all time.

Breast actress award? I'll bet you're a real big hit with the ladies. You might want to consider giving the women projectionists here a little bit more respect.

 

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 09-09-2000, 02:46 AM:
 
What's wrong with hating Leo?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-09-2000, 03:35 AM:
 
Sorry Jim, I just felt the comments above were a bit shovanistic. Also I dealt with the crazed out Star Wars fanatics who camped out for OVER A MONTH outside my theater! They were so angry at the fact that "the damn boat movie with that wimpy Leo" (as they called it) outgrossed their precious Star Wars films that they were determined to keep purchasing tickets until Star Wars outgrossed Titanic (which it of course did not).

My favorite argument of theirs was "the damn boat movie was so predictable! You just KNOW the boat's gonna sink!" Hmmm, gee. Let's see, think Obi Wan and Anakin will survive? Of course they will! DUH! (I guess they never saw the original Star Wars - Episode 4.) After we did the first trade screening on it (they figured out what was going on inside pretty quick) they started catching me as I came to and from the theater bugging me about it. I of course WOULD NOT TELL THEM A DAMN THING. hehehehehe

Anyway, I'm not a Leo fanatic, but the whole thing just got really old, that's all. I took great delight in running that trailer for The Beach in front of Episode 1 because the crowd "boooooed" like mad every time it came on to the point they drowned out the audio track on it. I of course, just cued the film to crank that one up! hehehehehe

Ahhhhh, memories.


 

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-09-2000, 08:21 AM:
 
What? Brad, are you trying to be a control freak or a therapist with those Star Wars fans?

"I'm sorry, Mr. Maul. You're going to have to work through your anger against Jack. Now give me those drawings of Rose..."


 

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-09-2000, 10:29 AM:
 
Nobody has touched on what I think is the foundational reason why box grosses are down this year. Last year was huge. What do you do after you win the world series? You go to Disney Land. Many a home run was hit last year, especially with movies nobody counted on, or had heard of (Blair Witch, 6th Sense). Everything was huge, so now Hollywood slacks off. It has nothing to do with home theatre. Home theatre last year didn't seem to hurt things much, and there haven't been any dramatic advances since then. People go to movies for the social aspect, to socialize with other people. Same as bars. You can drink at home, its just not always as much fun.

Often when records are set, it is followed by a down time (Michael Johnson?). Next year or the year after, the effort will be back, the movies will be worth watching (the overall result here is yes, the movies are poor), and everyone will be overwhelmed at how busy they are again. Like everything, its cyclic. People have the money to spend, Hollywood is just still full after last year's buffet, so they'll settle for cheezy poofs until they get really hungry.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson
 

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-09-2000, 09:46 PM:
 
Sorry if my comment offended anyone; it's a familiar phrase if you've ever read Joe Bob Briggs who writes reviews of really bad B-movies.
 
Posted by Mike Jones (Member # 522) on 09-10-2000, 06:19 PM:
 
why is business down this year?... two words: "bad movies"

yep, no other reason, look at the movies that came out the year before last, then look at this past years. They all suck! Way to go studios, you suck!
 

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-10-2000, 09:10 PM:
 
I believe Mike is correct. Not to put you down, Chad, but I don't think the success of 1999 is any excuse. Look at the 1980s. In 1980 you had The Empire Strikes Back and the next year you had Raiders of the Lost Ark and Superman 2. The next year the studios didn't slouch either. You had E.T., Rocky 3, Star Trek 2 and Poltergiest. The next year it was Flashdance and Return of the Jedi. A year later it was Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters. Then we're up to 1985 with Back to the Future and Silverado.

They're all well-respected to this day. They all created spill-over business to other movies when those movies were sold out. Nobody expected Hollywood to take a break just because of a successful box office year. In those days, they weren't paying any stars $20 million per movie. Instead, they were pumping the money into things like... I don't know... 70mm release prints!


 

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 09-11-2000, 11:28 AM:
 
Rather than whining about how box office is down, why don't we do something about it? With theater companies dropping like flies, don't blame the film companies (although some product doesn't hurt), but rather, buckle up and streamline your operations. If it's slow, send staff home. It's very easy to run an 8-plex w/ just a manager and a floor staff employee who sells tickets, concessions, and tears the tickets as well. The manager threads up the movies as far in advance as possible, so that he can be down on the floor to help the employee during the mini-rush. Rise to the occasion! Keep your individual theater running in the black. I just had a horrible summer (split product w/ 2 Carmikes - they played Dinosaur, MI2, Big Momma's House, The Patriot, The Perfect Storm, Scary Movie, AND X-Men). If it was a good summer movie, they played it (with the exception of the Dreamworks pictures - Chicken Run and What Lies Beneath). Sure, I would have liked to be busier, but part of management is dealing with the pitfalls that come your way. It is far easier to say "those damn film companies - it's their fault" than to take on a little extra work for yourself and pay attention to the little things (utilities, etc) that can be cut.

Now, this message is aimed at managers that are bitching, as this is the GROUND LEVEL forum. I'm sure the world is viewed very differently through a projectionists eyes, but here in Mankato, I don't have any - just a couple of high school kids that are trained as "Usher-B" to fill in when management needs a little help.

Well, that's just my humble opinion - hope I didn't offend anybody
 

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 09-13-2000, 01:38 PM:
 
Business is slow everywhere it seems. The reason might just be a lack of quality movies. How many times can sit through the same plot line. You know the one..boy likes girl,girl likes boy, boy & girl think each other hates them,then boy & girl get together... There have been a dozen of these things lately not to mention the even worse..I KNOW WHAT YOU SCREAMED ABOUT LAST SUMMER AND I STILL DO.

Some of the independants make good films lately but the kids, who are our largest demographic, aren't mature enough to enjoy them yet.


 

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-16-2000, 12:57 PM:
 
The problem with this summer was that there was no movies that EVERYBODY wanted to see. Things are too fragmented. Scary Movie appealed to the kids, Patriot appealed to the adults, etc. Plus word-of-mouth on a lot of the movies was bad.

Last year, Sixth Sense started out appealing to just Bruce Willis and horror/thriller fans, then when the word got out "you have to see this movie!" and the film was off and running. Nothing like that this year.

We lacked a great Disney film this year. Tarzan was up there in quality with their classics, Dinosaur was not. And the release was too early. Result...lower grosses.

I don't think home theatre has much to do with it. Our grosses were slightly up this summer because we've been more agressive getting movies closer to the break than before. Makes a big difference.
 

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 09-17-2000, 10:55 PM:
 
To the customer every movietheatre is the same if they have a bad experience at one theatre they think all theatres are that way and they wont go. thats why if the theatre across town runs out of butter we lend them some because to most people it not the "Loews in the mall" or "The AMC By the highway" its "theatre in the mall" or "The theatre By the highway"
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 10-01-2000, 09:45 PM:
 
The Patriot which was released on 06/28/00 will be out on video on 10/24/00. Thats less than 4 months from original opening. In my area the discounts just got it a couple of weeks ago. This was one of the biggest pictures of the summer. What sort of message does that send to the public?

If exhibition as a whole doesn't start putting its foot down about this sort of thing and demand longer windows..... we are all going to be looking for some other line of work.
 

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-01-2000, 11:17 PM:
 
The 1990s breed of multiplexes allows a movie to exhaust its appeal more quickly than ever. When something like Godzilla was playing on 6 screens in a typical 10-plex, everyone in America who wanted to see the movie was able to see it in the first week. Americans just don't want to tolerate making the effort to go to a movie theatre and see that their choice is sold out. The public doesn't have the patience to wait several weeks to see a hit movie (like in the 1980s when something like Return of the Jedi on one screen sold out every Saturday night for a couple of months). So the movie theatres increased their screen numbers to accommodate. And now that has become a problem.

Why should the studios postpone the video release of any movie which has clearly exhausted its box office strength? The exhibitors have to share the blame.
 

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-02-2000, 12:38 AM:
 
I still think theaters can't blame the studios. Every other business is selling *their* place of business, not so much the products they have which may be available at most other places.

Sunday I negotiated someone into going to a movie - no horror movies, comedies OK - so it was "Chicken Run". It was still running at a primary first-run mall multiplex that had been closed for massive remodeling & reopened this summer. Every other auditorium supposedly THX, all rooms EX.

I stalled at the concession stand so that we got into the auditorium after the listed start time, so the opening titles were just coming up. The film was eaten up with horizontal scratches. It was like watching a movie through a screen door. But, the first comment I heard was "That air conditioner sure is loud!" The depressing thing about that is that it seems like folks are sort of conditioned now to be unfazed by damaged prints.

It was *work* to watch that movie.

There were about 15 others in the auditorium (OK, it's an older title, & it was Saturday afternoon), but for once I was grateful for some loud & running but responsive children. Otherwise, it would have been like watching a comedy in a church. And stadium seating still is further diminishing emotional involvement with movies, dadgummit!

The reply to "How was it?" was "It was OK." And I'm sure most of that was just being polite. We here can tell separate a good movie from bad presentation, but an *audience* cannot. The movie to them is the whole experience, & what we saw was no reason to go back & give money to people to do that again.

------------------
William Hooper
Junk drawer: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/theater/3622
Theatre Empire: http://members.xoom.com/saenger.1
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2000, 11:58 AM:
 
In defense of the theater as a possibility...

The sad part about that is the print of Chicken Run you saw was quite possibly a used print that had been thouroughly "integrity inspected" and deemed to be a good print. It is quite possible that theater never laid a mark on it, or did tons of work cleaning it up before you saw it. Still, the customers never know and say just what you did and decide to never patronize the theater again. This is exactly why I get so angry at Technicolor when they demand prints back after "sneaks" and trade screenings only to jumble the prints around instead of sending them back to their originating theaters.

It is my personal opinion TES should hire an outside inspection company (I would even form one if there was an interest) to go through all prints that are returned from theaters. I'm absolutely positive that the service would completely pay for itself AND turn a nifty profit by CHARGING theaters who lay a mark on prints. Charge them for the reel or entire print, but charge them! This is the only way the exhibition industry as a whole will get off of their butts, from being forced to care about their presentation.


 

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-08-2000, 11:59 PM:
 
quote:
The sad part about that is the print of Chicken Run you saw was quite possibly a used print that had been thouroughly "integrity inspected" and deemed to be a good print. It is quite possible that theater never laid a mark on it, or did tons of work cleaning it up before you saw it. Still, the customers never know and say just what you did and decide to never patronize the theater again. This is exactly why I get so angry at Technicolor when they demand prints back after "sneaks" and trade screenings only to jumble the prints around instead of sending them back to their originating theaters.

I've done my hard time on making something presentable of a TES print delivered just in time for a one-night showing, & couldn't agree more about them being a major presentation problem.

But the above scenario then makes *two* theaters responsible for the rotten show
1. The theater that banged up the print in the first place, & putting junk on the screen at *their* theater
2. The theater that didn't scream & get another print after getting the nasty one from the first theater. With no more concern for their own audience, they just let it run.

And really, it's a sort of corporate mentality that seems to come from a little above the DM level. Folks at the local level are either trying very hard, or have developed a defeatist attitude. I've begun to create to classifications of "depressed projectionist" & "mentally dissociated for his own mental health manager" to slot some of the folks I meet into.


 

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-28-2002, 04:49 PM:
 
Until mid-July this year looked to be a sure record-breaker: "Oscar Bait" with commercial appeal, huge hits out of nowhere, sequels packing 'em in.

Now we're coming up on Labor Day and we'll be lucky to do better this summer than last. For six straight weeks the national box office total has been lower than the same period in 2001.

Could it be the economy? It hasn't hurt business in New Jersey (yet) but it may be hurting business elsewhere.

Could it be the product? The last few weeks we've seen 2 or 3 hits plus a bunch of programmers.

Could it be a backlash against the hype? Star Wars Episode 2 got to $200 million easily and struggled to get to $300 million. MIIB, Goldmember, and xXx will need overseas box office to turn a profit.


 

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-28-2002, 06:41 PM:
 
I can tell that this past weekend and this week, interest in movies locally has seriously dwindled. Hits on my web site (hsvmovies.com) are a good indication of movie theatre attendances, I've found. Hits this week are less than half what they've been on a typical week during the summer.

The Cinemagic Drive-In is going to end its season by getting the movies "Master of Disguise" and "Crocodile Hunter" starting this Friday, then will close for the season on September 5.



 

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-28-2002, 08:55 PM:
 
It's this phenomenon that happens every year at this time, called "School." How can people afford to go to the movies when they've got to outfit the kiddies with the latest low-rise and/or baggy jeans, sneakers with lights in the heels and "hottie" short shirts?

Oh, and the movies have largely sucked. That too.
 

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-28-2002, 08:57 PM:
 
Discount is WAY up over last year. I'm up 32%.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2002, 09:10 PM:
 
Along with the start of school, now is the start of the fall sports season, with practice sessions and games to attend, or watching NFL/NCAA football weekends on television.

Would seem to be a good time to cater to the "empty nest" crowd with more mature or art fare, or "chick flicks" for those abandoned by their sports-nut significant others.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-29-2002, 09:56 AM:
 
In addition to what others mentioned, I think this end-of-summer drop off is trend that's increasing every year. More hits/business in May, less in August.
 
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-29-2002, 02:39 PM:
 
Amen Scott! If only more realized this. It's my guess that most of the corporate brass has had little, if any, actual "hands-on" on the floor experience as exhibitors and are completely out of touch with the movie going public. The fact that every major chain has filed for bankruptsy tells me that the megaplex magic has worn off and yet they keep building the things and closing others. What kind of business sense is this? Why can't they figure out that putting 10 or 20 screens in an area previously served by to or three single screens just isn't going to work? Especially when corporate bookers (as I said in another post) play right into the hands of the distributors and saturate an area with certain titles or are forced into extended play or when theatres attempt to recoup the "highway robbery" rental rates from the movie-goer or attempt to pay for all the new technology (they think will have customers flocking in) in the same way.

You also have staff that are less than courteous to customers, exorbitant concessions prices, poor screen performances, a lack of ambience, screen advertising (just like TV) and poor quality product. Is it any wonder business is down?

There is a solution to this but, based on their past performances, I doubt that the corporate brass will listen to it as they seem to be programmed into believing that the movie-going public will accept anything they do. Duh!

Bob
The Old Showman


 

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-29-2002, 08:13 PM:
 
I think there are several factors affecting business.

In terms of teen to twenty-something dating audience, it's not hip to go to the mall. And that's where most of the theatres are.

Theatres (even the chains) actually used to do something called programming. They would buy films appropriate to a market or even a neighborhood. Now, every multiplex (or megaplex) is playing exactly the same films.

No studio wants a film that does under $150 million. This limits the kinds of films made into the big star-driven, special effects driven blockbusters and garbage teen movies. Thirty years ago, there were far more choices. When I was dating, in addition to the hits of the day, we also went to see Truffaut, Bertolucci, French new wave, etc.

I think films are over-marketed. You see TV and other advertising for so long before the movie is released, by the time it comes out you think it's an old film.

Trailers are so loud and hyperactive in order to attract teens, that they scare away everyone 35 and above.

Concession prices are too high. In NYC, the minimum price for a small soda is $2.50 and a small popcorn is $3 to $3.50. Moviegoers don't understand the economics of the business and that in most cases, the theatre isn't making much from the film itself. They just think they're getting ripped-off.

And, in spite of stadium seating and digital sound, much presentation isn't that great. Most mega theatres are not warm and inviting places and you don't feel the sense of magic that one should feel when entering a theatre. This isn't helped by the use of ads instead of thematic walk-in music, etc.

Because of all those factors, more and more people are electing to watch the DVD instead. A New York Times article earlier this week maintained that there is now a 33% DVD penetration rate in the US and that DVD sales/rentals will reach $8.1 billion in 2002 (vs. $4.3 billion for VHS).

They also claim:
DVD sales now exceed VHS sales.
The average DVD owner purchases 15 films per year vs. 5 for VHS owners.
Home market sales/rentals now accounts for 50% of total take.
Typically, domestic theatrical release is only 20% of total take.
As of 6/30, Training Day grossed $76.3 million at the boxoffice and $86.10 in DVD Sales/rentals (not including VHS.)

As of 6/30, Fast and the Furious did $144 million at the boxoffice and another $144 million in DVD sales/rentals.

They make the case that increasingly, the theatrical release is a marketing exercise to promote home sales.

Now, IMO, just as most people still shop in physical stores even though they can more conveniently shop online, I think many people will tire of watching movies at home. People enjoy the group experience. One proof of that is that earlier this summer, 10,000 people showed up in Bryant Park to watch Young Frankenstein and almost that many showed up for The Postman Always Rings Twice. IMO, they came because it was quite exciting as a group event, although everyone also got really into the films: they cheered when each main character appeared and a laughed at every joke, even the bad ones. If those films had played at the Film Forum or one of the other few revival houses, they probably wouldn't have been seen by more than a few hundred people at most.

Theatres have left all marketing to the studios. When was the last time you saw a theatre market itself? In NYC, the few THX screens don't even indicate themselves as such in newspaper ads. One of the problems with the chains owning everything is that IMO, they think of themselves as McDonald's. They want every theatre to be perfectly consistent with each other. The only problem is that, like McDonald's, it's consistently mediocre.

I read this week that "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," which was made for something like $6 million, has done about $60 million at the boxoffice, certainly way beyond anyone's expectations. Hopefully that will start a trend of producing more intelligent, independent films that attract a wider audience, just as Easy Rider started a trend away from the last generation of big-studio boring musicals (think "Paint Your Wagon").

While advertisers and marketers still live with the fantasy that only 18-35 year old males are worthy advertising and marketing targets, one day it's going to hit them that people over 50, the baby boomers, will soon be the majority of the population.


 

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-29-2002, 11:47 PM:
 
Martin -- You are very right about the megaplex "experience." When I go to the movies, I feel like I'm being led through a maze of tensa-barriers to a window where someone who could care less about me or thier job sells me a ticket so that I can get shuffled into a concrete box where I become another statistic on paper to present to potential ad space buyers, then I am shown a film run by someone who could care less about the people in the auditorium or their job and thinks that scratches are just a part of film as they are of records, then as the show finishes and the fist credit hits the screen, the work lights come on and the army begins cleaning while looking scornly at the remaining patrons in the auditorium, kicking cups and smacking popcorn bags with brooms so that they can get the place looking as acceptable as possible for the next herd. Where has the magic gone??

And I hope they never stop producing VHS tapes, otherwise I won't be able to buy movies anymore.

=TMP=
 

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 08-31-2002, 06:30 PM:
 
Amen to the end part of your post Thomas about the VHS. For my home movies, I am just looking for the play, rewind, fast forward, and pause buttons. That is all that I really need. I got a DVD player have some DVD's, but all of that extra stuff just doesn't matter to me that much. The DVD's that I own are just for the extra footage and commentaries from my favorite movies (rarely the multiplex blockbuster garbage). I know that alot of people will disagree with me, but all the menus and chapters and stuff just doesn't matter to me. But that is just me.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-01-2002, 12:54 AM:
 
>> The fact that every major chain has filed for bankruptsy<<

Cinemark didn't and they are one of the top five.

Mike Spaeth hit the nail on the head. Discount business is up compared to last year. Everyone is seeing those movies that came out in the spring and early summer leaving the crap in the first runs alone. Wonder what will happen when the crap hits second run. First runs get more business.


 

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 09-08-2002, 12:27 PM:
 
now what's odd is I spoke with the owner of the theatre I used to work at and he said we almost did better this year than last. It was very close as far as the numbers go. What did help was the local chain theatre raising prices to $6.25 for matinee and $8.25 for night, while we stayed at $4 and $6, respectively.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-08-2002, 01:51 PM:
 
I think discount business is up largely because many customers aren't willing to pay a full admission price to see a lot of the crap being released these days. I mean there is a LOT of films out there. When I see a trailer for some film like "Eight Legged Freaks" or "Master of Disguise" I automatically start thinking "wait for the DVD if I even want to see it at all". Many other films are mediocre at best and not worth full admission price. I might gamble a matinee fee for the movie, or if there is a decent bargain house playing it, maybe I'll see it there.

Theaters get clogged with mainstream garbage at the same times every year. Right now we're in one of those blah-quality times. The "summer movie season" seems to start and end earlier every year. For the past few years it has started in early to mid May and fizzled by the end of July. All of August through mid to late September is usually a wasteland of low quality films Hollywood majors are trying to empty off their shelves.

The January-February period is another time which I would call the "holiday hangover" slot. The would be hits from the holiday season have already been released and dropping off in earnings. The oscar-caliber films are in extremely limited release in this time and only platforming to a few other theaters. Some might go wide after the oscar nominations are announced. But you can depend on this particular "season" to deliver a lot of the same terrible quality new releases as what you see in late summer.

The lead up before the summer movie season (April to early May) can also be really bad. Not only do you see low quality releases, but often there are few releases in this period while all the distributors try to "position" the releases of all their intended top-quality summer product.

What ever happened to a Hollywood studio just releasing a great movie whenever it could do so? This "summer movie season" thing really didn't get ingrained into schedules until the 1980's. I seem to recall both "MASH" and "Patton" being released in January of 1970. That wouldn't happen today because the studios think no one is willing to visit a theater in winter. If so, why did "Titanic" rack up most of its sell-out shows and many consecutive number-1 weekends during winter? It may have been released in December of 1997, but it took a lot of the early months of 1998 for it to gather its $600 million domestic gross.

At any rate, Hollywood deserves a lot of blame for the periodic downturns in movie release quality. They could spread a lot of their great releases all throughout other months that normally get overlooked.
 

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-09-2002, 01:33 PM:
 
I have to wonder with the growing amount of in-theatre advertising, if it's reached the point where it's only bringing in enough money to make up for the customers who no longer go to the theatre because of the ads!
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-09-2002, 08:19 PM:
 
Its not the ads that are keeping me away (although I dislike them), its the abysmal quality of the films out there and the lack of caring operators that make me want to stay home. I've even given up on seeing art films in LA because of sloppier and sloppier presentations ( I USED to enjoy Landmark theatres in LA, but theyre falling apart).
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-09-2002, 09:25 PM:
 
QUOTE:
quote:
I seem to recall both "MASH" and "Patton" being released in January of 1970.

But this was before the so-called national break became prominent. Patton was a very slowly released roadshow film that would debut over many months. Many moderate-sized cities wouldn't get the film until late summer of 1970. MASH also had a very long roll-out, playing mostly in exclusive engagements in the larger cities. It, too, didnt really go into a multiple theatre release until the fall of 1970.
 

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-09-2002, 10:52 PM:
 
Anything prior to the advent of Video and Calbe tv pay per view can not be used as a real comparison as to how film did business wise. Many factors are taken into account now. Theaters are used now to push the sales of future Video and DVD rentals and sales. Without the theaters generating a notice, even if people don't see the film in the theater, the industry would faulter. You still need movie theaters to generate revenue but it is a huge advertiser for the films when they hit video. If it was big in the theaters it will be huge in the video market.


 

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 09-11-2002, 02:50 PM:
 
Last week was the 8th straight that turnout was down compared to 2001. I attribute that to school (all schools have reopened), football and the product out there. Outside of Greek Wedding and One Hour Photo nothing else seemed to be drawing crowds.

At least Fox did a smart thing for this week: Most theaters that were to have gotten The Transporter will get One Hour Photo. That should insure better business compared to the same weekend in 2001.
 

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 10-03-2002, 07:08 PM:
 
Speaking of adds: Anywhere on the web to find examples of the American way of making newpaper adds. -Would really like to see some !

p.
 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-03-2002, 08:58 PM:
 
AFAIK, some of the restricted distributor sites for theatre managers have "press ready" copy of newspaper movie ads on-line.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-03-2002, 09:11 PM:
 
Mijo Print Technologies handles online Ad Slick distribution for:

Alliance Atlantis
Paramount Pictures
Warner Bros.
Buena Vista
Universal

www.mijoprint.com


 

Posted by Buck Kolkmeyer (Member # 1128) on 10-04-2002, 03:19 PM:
 
According to EDI, box office revenues are up 12% through 9/22. Our own circuit is up 19% in revenues this year compared to the same period last year. It took 20.5% more in attendance to hit those numbers, however.

September is up substantially thanks to no Olympics or tragic events.
The weekend of 9/6 the top ten pictures were down 2.53% but 9/13 was up 44.45%, the weekend of the 20th was up 65% and last weekend was up 49%.
 

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-24-2008, 11:57 AM:
 

It has been 2028 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 04-24-2008, 11:57 AM:
 
bumping this topic to the top.

I think since gas prices are forcing everything else to raise their prices the summer box office isnt going to be as good as years past even with the movies we have coming out.
Right now I was looking at my theatres numbers compaired to last year and we are down by alot! They are even running discounted first round of shows at $4 dollars a ticket just to try to drum up business.

Is everyone else seeing a downturn in business too? It would seem to me no one has extra money to goto the movies with gas being the way it is. And the summer is not even here yet.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-24-2008, 12:11 PM:
 
Actually movie theatre attendance is doing it's normal thing right now. The thing I see being affected this summer is people doing less long distance driving for liesure purposes like vacations. Eventually this crude oil bubble will bust and prices will fall on oil and gas prices will comedown.
 
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-24-2008, 01:06 PM:
 
Actually the movies this year are no better or worse than previous years the marketing has missed on many films. The high gas prices should have a negative effect on the big city theaters as people may not travel in from the small towns to see the movies. And reversely it may actually help the small town theater do a little better.
 
Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 04-24-2008, 07:16 PM:
 
I would think the gas prices will effect all theatres just because of the fact no one really has any money to spend on fun stuff really when food cost so much cuz of gas and everything seems to be going up up up in price, including our concessions and admission prices. Here in orlando I'm seeing a downturn in business. And yes I know this is the "slow season" right now, but it usually isnt this slow.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-24-2008, 07:36 PM:
 
..along with the product that really haven't had any strong legs to muster large attendances.

..plus with the massive increases in digital home theatre concepts - HDTV and with sound that can horribly beat out the cinemas ..

..and with studios releasing DVD and BluRay products much sooner than before.

I do believe that we're re-entering into that 50 yr old scare of "TV vs the Movie Theatre" saga again.

..and agree: fuel and the general economy are keeping some of the masses at home where they can find their own form of entertainment without putting the wallet in a vise of sorts.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-24-2008, 10:14 PM:
 
Jubak, the economist at MSN thinks the forces that are driving oil and food prices won't begin to stabilize until about 2010 or so. He thinks we'll be at USD $180/bbl oil and $5.50/gal gas by then. Certainly we'll be seeing $4.00/gal gas in many parts of the US this summer.

2010 is also when most housing prices are predicted to bottom out and begin a turnaround. The banks are going to need at least that much time to absorb and write down all those bad loans. This is what Japan went through in the 1990's after their bubble burst. They had about of decade of deflation because their real estate reached absolutely insane price levels. Our post-bubble recovery shouldn't be from as deep a hole nor quite so long in coming.

Here in 'Vegas, the foreclosure capital of the US, we're currently seeing 5000 new foreclosures every month and will be for the rest of this year. Watch us for indications - we're on the leading edge.

Fasten your seat belts folks, it may be a rough ride for the next little while.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-25-2008, 06:21 AM:
 
Business is down for one simple reason. People aren't interested in seeing the product that is out right now. Heck, I like going to movies and I can see whatever I want for free and I haven't seen anything since Vantage Point. There's just nothing exciting out there. Look at last week, you had 88 Minutes with a major star get AWEFUL reviews, Forgetting Sarah Marshall has multiple instances of full male nudity of a person that nobody (Male or Female) would want to see naked, and then the Forbidden Kingdom (which could have been an awesome "kung fu" movie but was made as a Familyish fantasy instead).

Once there is product that people want to see, they will return because even with the current economic conditions and gas prices going to a movie is still a pretty cheap form of entertainment (compare a movie ticket with two hours of drinking for instance).

As for the DVD/Blu-ray window stuff, it isn't like people are waiting to see this garbage on DVD/Blu-ray either. If you look, every time there is a box office downturn, there is a DVD downturn that follows 4 months later when the same crap comes out on DVD. The video window has effected legs, multiple viewings and especially second run but you could make the DVD window 3 years and the current crop of product wouldn't be doing any better.

As for the economic downturn, many analysts see the mortgage "crisis" bottoming out this year because three years ago was the peak in 3 year adjustable mortgages and now is when they are adjusting and killing people. I put "crisis" in quotes because the media has half the country thinking that they can get foreclosed on at any minute by constantly reporting on the "sub-prime MORTGAGE CRISIS" (empasis added) when 80% of people don't even know what a sub-prime mortgage is. Oil prices can't continue to increase at this pace because people are and will adjust consumption to take less of a hit at the pump. Also, aside from speculation,the weak dollar has a lot to do with the price and as seen yesterday, improvement in the dollar has a drastic effect on oil prices (dropped from $120 bbl to $116 bbl on a strenghtening dollar).
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 04-25-2008, 10:49 AM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
Business is down for one simple reason. People aren't interested in seeing the product that is out right now.
I couldn't agree more. I've probably seen about 4 movies in the theatre this year. The only ones I enjoyed were Blade Runner and The Terminator. (Both had large crowds)

[Smile]
 
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-25-2008, 11:01 AM:
 
Blaming TV or a variant there for every down turn in theater business has been a staple of the theater industry since the 1950's. And every time there is down swing there are those claiming it is the end of movie theaters.

Hollywood would never dream of saying our product sucks right now, or we didn't promote this right and theaters would never ever admit that people didn't like going to their location because you stick to the floors. Big chains don't like to admit when they have over built an area but all these things happen and right now the good movies were handled poorly, the bad movies have been far to many and the crowds aren't here for us.

DVD sales were off last year and the theater business had the best year ever, well I don't know about that but that is the hype. It was at least an up year this year isn't looking so good.

The real question isn't what is causing it but how long will it last. We have been in down turn of business from the previous year since February. Will the summer this year be down from last year? Fall? Holiday? It the down turn in business goes the rest of the year watch out! (we will have more business in summer but as much as last year?)
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2008, 11:58 AM:
 
Lyle hit the nail on the head. The movie business is CYCLICAL, it always has been and always will be. Cripes, you'd think some of the people on this board were born yesterday.

Traditionally movie theatres have done OK in hard economic times because going to the movies is a low-priced entertainment option compared to other out-of-home options.

This particular down-turn will end on May 2.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-25-2008, 12:30 PM:
 
Things should start to get better for the movies. How much better is the big question.
 
Posted by Michael Wilkinson (Member # 2389) on 04-25-2008, 02:50 PM:
 
There have only been a few recent films that have kept me in the seat for the whole movie.

With all of the good product coming up this summer I still don't see the one "anchor film" (or series) that gets people back in the habit of going to the movies. The last one of those was the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The LOTR series benefited benefited everyone for years. Harry Potter is fizzling out. Pirates was huge but no legs. The Spider Man series kind of went the same route. Iron Man is supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread but I'm not sure if either Iron Man or Indy will be the type of pictures that will create the momentum needed to make the slow times a little more bearable.

Besides a strong Summer does anyone think that there are any real cycle breakers coming up??? ...and how old is Harrison Ford anyway?
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-25-2008, 04:43 PM:
 
66 on July 13th this year. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2008, 08:39 PM:
 
quote: Michael Wilkinson
Harry Potter is fizzling out.
The last one was the top grosser of the series so far for us, and the 2nd highest in attendance. (Higher gross due to ticket price increase.) If that's a fizzle, I'll take it.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-25-2008, 09:01 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
If that's a fizzle, I'll take it.
And with Mike's little theatre, practically any show that hits his screen probably does very well since he's in a market all by himself and the closest competition is Billings - a good hour's drive away.

Thus, that's of of the key words in this hill-and-dale industry is "market" - some market areas can tank on a film, whereas others can make bank and then some.

-Monte
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-25-2008, 09:47 PM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
Look at last week, you had 88 Minutes with a major star get AWEFUL reviews, Forgetting Sarah Marshall has multiple instances of full male nudity of a person that nobody (Male or Female) would want to see naked, and then the Forbidden Kingdom (which could have been an awesome "kung fu" movie but was made as a Familyish fantasy instead).
The fact that only one movie out of the three you mention performed poorly shows that your point isn't exactly well-founded. People aren't seeing 88 Minutes, as you noted, probably because it looks stupid and got awful reviews.

But each of the other movies you mentioned grossed more than double that of 88 Minutes. And both got overall favorable reviews. Also of note is the fact that there is much more in Forgetting Sarah Marshall than a frontal scene.

It's like an old manager of mine who freaked out for a long time over a scene in About Schmidt saying he didn't want to see Kathy Bates naked. By his ranting you would've thought it was like 5 minutes long or something, when in reality it was a couple seconds out of a fantastic movie.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2008, 11:10 PM:
 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
And with Mike's little theatre, practically any show that hits his screen probably does very well since he's in a market all by himself
Uhhh, no. It takes a popular movie, and people here have their satellite TV and DVDs and videogames etc. just like in the big cities. It's Friday night right now and we have a grand total of 16 people here ("21," late show). So I'm countin' the days until summer right along with everyone else!
 
Posted by Paul Van Dusen (Member # 3640) on 04-25-2008, 11:54 PM:
 
I can sum up why business is down in three words "Beverly Hills Chihuahua"
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 04-26-2008, 12:24 PM:
 
Man I wanna see Beverly Hills Chihuahua soooo bad...
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2008, 01:04 PM:
 
Over the past 40 years, whenever the United States economy was in a recession the movie industry seemed to do pretty well. Classics like The Godfather and Raiders of the Lost Ark were released during recessionary periods.

I think this upcoming summer movie season (which kicks off this coming Friday) is going to better than it has been in years. There's actually even some big releases that aren't sequels!

For the broader economy, even world-wide, I think we're in trouble.

I'm convinced many of the expert economists don't know what they're talking about regarding predictions of when the oil price bubble will finally pop or when housing prices will get back on a positive trend. Worse yet, if those economists really knew what they were talking about, the few truly in the know wouldn't tell the general public the slightest bit of truth.

But that's assuming the public even needed to be told what was in store regarding this housing industry crisis. Any idiot should have seen the bust coming. Policy makers certainly knew what was in store, but too many of their friends were making lots of money right then. Why be a "buzzkill" and ruin the party?

The housing industry was treated like an electronics store during a fiery riot. Everybody stormed the place, cleaned it out and threw in a Molitav Cocktail for the coup de grāce. The housing industry was a free for all too. Speculators were trading property like baseball cards. Others were moving into houses they knew they could not afford, but did it anyway as an act of appearing more affluent. But they didn't care. They took comfort in the notion they could always flip the house to some other buyer before that "ARM" re-adjusted to a higher interest rate.
[Roll Eyes]

Everyone seemed to believe the commonly held lie housing prices have never declined and could only go up. Not only was that belief completely ignorant of long term market history, but it also ignored the fundamental fact that someone eventually had to just live in that house and pay for the damned thing with their income.

Oil prices and the prices of other commodities (corn, rice, etc.) are now being run up by the same greedy speculators who turned the housing market into a toilet. Those speculators are also among the same group of people who exported huge chunks of American industry to other countries -thus over-heating the economies of those countries and making thing like oil cost a whole lot more.

Drivers in countries like China, India and Iran aren't affected by those high gasoline prices since their socialist or psuedo-socialist governments subsidize the crap out of that one commodity. But those governments can't quite do the same for something called "food." Price spikes for various food commodities, such as rice, have been making life much worse in already impoverished areas of thew world. This is the sort of thing that can start war.

I think the United States' dollar is going to go through the most serious bout of inflation since the late 1970s. It's already happening, but I think matters are going to get worse. The upside to that is everyone will have to be paid quite a bit more in dollars to maintain the same level of buying power. Those super high housing prices and gasoline prices will be devalued in a relative way.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-28-2008, 05:38 PM:
 
I think I've said this whenever this topic comes up. My wife and I WANT to go to the movies. We very much like the early AMC shows on the weekend...they allow us to get to a film and still have time to get some things done around the house, yard or whatever.

But, right now, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE. And, yes, I meant to shout there. Even the "art" films out now are not very interesting.

What do we want to see? Smart, well written comedies like DEATH AT A FUNERAL. Good drama, like THE QUEEN or NOTES ON A SCANDAL. Great storytelling, like PAN'S LABRYRINTH. We'll go see the more commercial things if they don't look too silly or predictable.

Yep..typical "old folks" movie goers. Lots of white hair at those early shows.

Hey, movie companies...I have enough money to enjoy your product. I still like the movie-going experience and I don't pirate your product. Send out a few thing for us once in awhile. Give us a good product, and we will spend our money with you.

And, no, Judd Apatow films are NOT on our list.
 
Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 04-30-2008, 10:21 AM:
 
Well I am hoping for the season to take an upturn in business. We're only scheduled to get narnia and indy this month and nothing else since we share product with a regal and I tell you having no new movies (even crappy ones) for two weeks straight as its been our total daily attendance for a 12 screen has been under 300 people. bleh. just terrible. And its tough too because alot of staff hours are being cut and most of these kids are tough to retain anyway considering how little they make. The promise of "it will get better" that management says alot isnt really taken to seriously. -sigh-
 
Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 05-09-2008, 05:54 PM:
 
Also, if there is a significant increase in screen count, that would decrease the per screen grosses. Last week we had Iron Man, last year this time - Spider Man. According to Boxoffice Mojo, YTD total grosses were up before last week. Now down by 2.7%.

For those in areas were there has been no new screens, what is the change.

For those in lower income areas where gas price changes make a big difference, what is the change.

As for us, we are in a low income area with no competition, and have seen a YTD decrease.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2