This is topic Your opinion on the future of exhibition 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=001557
Posted by Gary Davidson (Member # 2198) on 11-15-2005, 10:54 AM:
There's a lot of corporate movement with the big theater chains announcing their intentions to embrace digital. There is also consolidation of companies trying to digitize, and maximize their preshow. And on top of that there's all the doom and gloom over non-attendance in theaters. Looking at the BIG PICTURE I'm curious at how my fellow fourmites foresee exhibition 5 years from now, or even 10 years from now?
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-15-2005, 11:34 AM:
Theatrical exhibition is in trouble. It is not due to crappy product, this has always been a problem, but people have always had a good time regardless.
Now we have an entire generation of young punks entering the workforce that will not do a good job for a small wage. They all seem to think they are entitled to free ipods and hummers and flat screen plasma tv's. They do a crappy job, don't care, and are more than willing to be rude to your guests.
Now on to the guests. We now have to deal with an enormous amount of the pre teen and post teen idiots that will not treat the location with respect, the other guests with respect, and will kick up thier feet on the seats in front of them, talk during the movie, sneek in thier own stuff, skateboard in front of the place running down old women and small children, and so on.
Respectful people with MONEY stay away from the place, leaving it to the idiots and morons and creeps. Every theater is becoming a stupid teeny bopper gang banger idiot filled mall. We should burn them all down. Not the theaters, the idiots and morons and gang bangers and everyone that makes the experience so crappy.
And on to the lack of people who can see as projectionists. Focusing isn't really that hard. Kill all of them if they can't focus. It should be a death sentence.
Lastly, what's wrong with demanding a lazyboy recliner for me to watch my movie while sitting in? And a steak? Beer! I have a better time at home... BUT... I want to go to the theater. I just hate dealing with the lack of focus, hot spots on the screen, morons who refuse to SHUT THE HELL UP during the movie, and so on.
Now what we need is a theater that caters to the picky SOB like me. I would gladly pay a premium price for a premium experience. There are plenty of quality and high class people that would do the same.
Ciao
Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 11-15-2005, 12:22 PM:
I really don't feel the theater is in that much danger. Every huge multiplex I've been to lacks one essential element, atmosphere. People just aren't going to pay $10+ to be cattled in to see the latest piece of crap with a shiny presentation. Luckily, some entreupeneurs have recognized that and I see a backlash building. Customer service and appreciation is taking over self-service speed. Granted it will take a bit for this to take a good hold but it's a good start.
As for presentation changes, as much as I am a traditionalist (as I'm sure most people who have threaded a projector are), digital is going to be the future. I miss the pops and small warbs of vinyl in my music collection but in the end, it's cheaper and more profitable for the record conpanies to go mp3, CD. The same is going to hold true in theaters, the presentation will be just enough better to make it seem a necessity especially considering it'll become a marketing point for that theater. Eventually the studios and distributors will scale back on reels, cans and prints and move to digital format.
---Matt
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-15-2005, 03:06 PM:
Oh boy, and here I thought I could just scan through new messages quickly and get back to the work I should be doing... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I make no secret about being critical about the theatrical distribution industry, which may seem odd considering that I've been publishing a web site that centers around it for almost 11 years. However, my comments are more from disappointment over lost potential than utter disdain.
It's possible that theaters will whither and die as a primary source of movie entertainment in the next five years. But if that happens, it will be the direct result of the inaction of the theaters themselves.
On the flip side, I think that theaters could be prospering as a primary source of group entertainment five years from now. (Notice I didn't specify that they would be showing movies as their primary function)
If theaters treat their customers like cattle and continue to sell the movie instead of the experience, they will be passed by even more than they already are. The comments above assert that the movie-going experience is continuing on a downward slide as a result of poor customer service, lack of atmosphere, and rude patrons. All three of these aspects are under the direct control of each theater.
Sure, poor product can and should be held responsible for some downturns, but there is enough good product to smoothe out those valleys. Blaming the product is an easy way for many to assign blame elsewhere, and not take responsibility for at least some of the problem directly.
Right now, theaters have a gift from the studios in the release window. The future may not be so generous, so it's important for theaters to take advantage of the exclusivity they enjoy to deliver their service to people as best possible, to keep those people coming back even when it's not a blockbuster season.
OK, back to your original questions.
Digital projection is the future. It's taking a long time to come to fruition, but it has continued to progress in the many years since it was first brought up. Maybe some would say that the quality hasn't reached a level of acceptability, but my experience has been the opposite. Compared to film projection in the Southeastern Wisconsin and Northeastern Illinois area, I have found digital cinema to be equal and often better than film.
If digital projection can save money and help theaters deliver a more consistent product, I'm all for that. I think it sucks that some good theaters doing film right and excellent projectionists that are true masters at their trade will be harmed in the fallout, but it will take many years for film to disappear (if at all) and hopefully those excellent film projectionists can learn to become excellent digital cinema booth managers.
In theory, switching to digital projection should make theaters easier to run with more consistent quality and allow theaters to concentrate on other aspects of the movie-going experience. The danger is that movies could become consistently mediocre much like the food at so many fast food places, but once again, that's completely up to the theater to choose good equipment and produce the best show possible.
Contrary to many opinions, I don't think going to the movies costs enough. Raising the price would filter out the elements that aren't there to enjoy the movie. They'll go to the theater down the road and annoy their customers and staff. I would be more than happy to pay 50% - 100% more for a movie ticket, if I knew that the experience was going to be top-notch from the time I walk in the door to the time I get back in my car. Heck, I'd probably pay more than that if the experience was consistently the best it could possibly be. I have yet to attend a theater which would qualify as anything more than "acceptable."
If I had to guess, I would say that there will be many fewer theaters in five years than there are today. Perhaps even as few as 50% of today's total, if not less. I think movies will be distributed via a variety of media, and the current release window will no longer exist. Home theaters will continue their growth to the point of ubiquity, where nearly every middle class home will be equipped with a large HDTV and surround sound capability.
The theaters that can adapt to the new reality instead of dragging their heels on "the way they've always done things" will succeed in being a destination for entertainment. And like the dinosaurs of the past, those who can't adapt will disappear.
The future of theatrical exhibition is entirely in the hands of the theaters themselves. Unfortunately, I think that many theaters would rather fail than concentrate on delivering a stellar movie-going experience for their customers. I would love for each and every theater to prove me wrong!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-15-2005, 03:29 PM:
quote:
I would love for each and every theater to prove me wrong!
I agree, but the bottom line is called money - just not feasable to have a well trained operator for every screen that can garnish a decent career wage to keep then there, or not every circuit can garnish positive attitude towards their employees so that they feel as in doing a good service to ensure this high standard of exhibition when the money isn't along with the positive attitude.
Some circuits are close to this dream and have achieved it very well with tremendous success in their operations. Others..well...you know the rest of the story.
Yes, it's fun to dream, but reality wakes us up and we have to live within that world of reality ... so what do you do in the meantime and that is "live with it"
-Monte
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-15-2005, 05:10 PM:
I believe that gigaplexes with digital projection will rule the release window for the next 20-years or so with a declining attendance. This after another 10-years of struggling to figure out who pays for the conversion. Watch out for the first All Digital with no film back-up theatre built in the US. This will be the tipping point of the flood.
There will be an upswing in film-festivals, film societies, film museums and the like. These will strive to present on the originating format whether it be 35mm, 70mm or video. Most of these places will need endowments and grants like art museums, live theatre, and most film festivals currently. The problem is that these places will be concentrated in urban settings and attended by the more sofisticated film buff. Those people in suburban, exurban and rural places will no longer have any public place to see film and will only have Video, DVD, mail order and downloading available.
But hopefully there will always be little pockets of resistance, and hold outs.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-15-2005, 06:35 PM:
Here are my predictions for the US exhibition industry in 2015. Look back in ten years and tell me how silly I was:
- screen count will decline; the largest casualties will be in older multiplexes and in smaller towns; theatres that aren't showing first-run product will be hit particularly hard (especially repertory houses)
- large first-run multiplexes in major markets will continue to be successful
- quality of film product will be about the same as it is now--a few great films every year, a good number of "good" films, and lots of "dogs"
- half of all screens will be using digital projection; most major releases will be available for ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
but smaller releases and older titles will often be 35mm-only; nearly all digital screens will have 35mm capability as well
- most mainstream titles will continue to be photographed on 35mm film, though 4K (and higher) digital intermediates will be standard practice
- there will continue to be incremental improvements in theatre sound systems--expect more channels, especially with digital projection systems
- the under-25 crowd will continue to be the primary customer demographic for mainstream films; overall attendance will be down slightly from current levels
- IMAX, DLP 3D, and other "alternative" formats will increase in popularity, but won't approach the success of standard 2D 35mm-quality product
- interest in historic theatres will increase, though most will need to be run as multipurpose non-profit "arts centers," not as profitable movie houses
- as much as I hate to say it, 70mm will only exist for occasional revival showings
- home viewing technologies will continue to improve, but at a slower rate than they have in the past ten years; by 2015 half of all US homes will have at least one high-definition TV set, and standard-def sets will be all but extinct from retailers
- most home users will still set up their equipment improperly
- film piracy will not increase substantially from current levels, though the quality of pirated copies may improve (especially if there are security issues with projection)
- other forms of entertainment (video games, etc.) will continue to increase in popularity
In short, competition for the "entertainment dollar" of the American public will increase. The theatres that survive will either be large newish multiplexes in major cities or "special" houses that either emphasize quality and customer service or which offer specialized programming that is unavailable elsewhere. Those who live in rural areas will have less access to specialized film programming than those who live in urban areas.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-15-2005, 06:44 PM:
Ten years from now, I believe we will see two levels of presentation.
On the one hand, there will be the multiplexes (10 screens and up, depending on demographics and population density) that will go all digital. We will witness the demise of the 3 to 9 screen locations that can't afford the bill to go digital.
On the other hand, many single screens and in some cases 2 screen houses will survive. They will be niche players such as art houses showing regular art fare, and special venue restorations (some of the old single screens rescued by non-profit groups or wealthy benefactors) that will show film on a limited basis along with live performances.
In order to survive, you're going to have to be real big, or very small.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2005, 07:26 PM:
quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
In order to survive, you're going to have to be real big, or very small.
Good! We're in. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2005, 08:41 PM:
All comments are well thought out except one......digital will not be inherently good.....or bad. As I have said before, it will be as good or as bad as the theatre owner requires. We know how bad film CAN be; we do not know all of the problems with TV projection. More importantly, the CUSTOMER (remember him?) does not care how the picture gets onto the screen; he cares only that it is OK or better. We are about to experience a very expensive education! Louis
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2005, 12:03 AM:
Digital projection systems require maintenance, just like any analog rig. Same goes for the sound systems. Expect the great tradition of bad presentation quality to continue in a good number of venues, regardless of analog or digital pedigree.
My predictions for 2015:
North America may have as little as 25% of its current theatrical screen count, if not less. The count may be as little as 10%. Some of the theaters will be IMAX or other types of special venue. Most mainstream houses will be projecting HDTV video (or maybe 4K if we're lucky). I think some revival houses will remain in business in the largest and most culturally sophisticated cities. But you're going to be hard-pressed to find theaters in most average American communities. This will happen for a variety of reasons.
Exhibitors will continue to get squeezed further by movie distributors. It's not enough for a film distributor to be profitable, they have to show a bigger profit next quarter. That way the stock price can improve and the journeyman CEO in charge for the moment can get his big fat bonus. Flooding the market with prints and shrinking the release windows to DVD have both been effective moves at sucking money away from exhibitors. Further stunts will help exhibitors die a death of a thousand cuts. At least all the red ink will make it seem that way.
I don't see the release window between theaters and home video disappearing anytime real soon. But I have doubts that release window will be around in 2015.
HD quality IPTV will be a common item in most homes by then. People will be surfing the Internet at 100Mbit/sec speeds, which is more than enough to watch 1080HD video on demand in real time. My prediction is conservative. Ten years ago, I had a 28kb/s dialup connection. Today I have a 3Mbit/sec DSL connection.
T100 quality and faster Internet connections in 2015 are going to destroy many business paradigms of broadcast, video distribution and telecommunications. We're worried about traditional movie theaters going out of business. People running traditional television stations, radio stations, long distance phone carriers and more ought to be really worried. In order to watch NBC you may have to visit their website. Many traditional outlets will have to start adapting to fit into that model pretty soon.
Movie distributors ought to be worried about fat Internet pipes too. Lots of movie theaters will disappear. But so will Hollywood's stranglehold on movie distribution. Getting access to independent and foreign films will be very easy.
A good number of folks in Hollywood and New York will still have jobs. After all, lots of video production still requires some healthy investments in equipment, studios, sets and other "production value" stuff. But the process will be more democratized and decentralized.
Onto some other comments about the current state of theaters:
quote: Dave Williams
Now we have an entire generation of young punks entering the workforce that will not do a good job for a small wage. They all seem to think they are entitled to free ipods and hummers and flat screen plasma tv's.
While I do agree there is a major segment of our work force lacking a basic sense of work ethic, the "they all want hummers and ipods" thing is just too broad a stroke to paint.
Overall, you get what you pay for in an employee. If you only want to pay minimum wage you can expect to get high turnover people who don't give a damn about 95% of the time. The other 5% are good people who won't stay long either. An assistant manager that makes only a little above minimum wage isn't going to be too compelled to care either. And if you can get a manager's job, will the pay be good enough to justify making a career out of it, especially if you can make more money elsewhere? I believe the really good theater managers are only there because they love movies. They're not there for the income. They're certainly not there over some kind of perceived duty. Such managers are increasingly rare and pretty damned generous.
Of course with the way movie exhibition companies continue to get squeezed it will be increasingly more difficult for those companies to take steps to attract a better quality workforce. I predict a worsening situation, which will help theaters disappear in a good number of markets.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Sure, poor product can and should be held responsible for some downturns, but there is enough good product to smoothe out those valleys. Blaming the product is an easy way for many to assign blame elsewhere, and not take responsibility for at least some of the problem directly.
That's true. But I think the situation is approaching the point where movie theaters can barely turn a profit off of good product.
Today a movie can make half a billion in box office gross in the first four weeks and then have attendance die off to nothing by the time the exhibitor starts seeing percentages of the take. That's all thanks to stunts like putting 8,000 or more prints into circulation. Hell, here in Lawton we had five prints of that damned Zorro sequel!
To make matters worse the distributors are constantly trying to eat in on counter sales. Do the distributors think movie theaters are non-profit 501C charities? Do they have to work for free? Who the hell is even going to pay the light bill? The movie distributors will have to go back to owning and operating the theaters themselves. Too bad they don't want to bother with any of that. If they could manage, everything would be going straight to DVD already.
If movie fans are lucky, some of the film distributors will quietly realize they need traditional movie theaters in operation to make their product legit. They're going to desperately need that kind of marketing support once the spectre of IP-everthing hits big.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-16-2005, 02:03 AM:
Okey, I'll chime in on the year 2015 (and hope that I'm retired by then to not to worry about all of this ..lol)
We will see the results of what called "the Survival of the Fittest" - some will definitely win and some will definitely lose (if they don't get their act together..SOON).
(Mike, you and the ROXY don't have to worry about all of this in your area-you got that all locked up quite nicely and have proven yourself an excellent survivor in this exhibition ratrace. You were in the right place, the right time, and the right frame of mind. Shoot, you could even give Billings a bit of a run...)
The Class "A" exhibitors will be the very strong "Lion" in the business, whereas the Class "B" operations, being the "Antalope" in the business, will defintely suffer and could be absorbed and eaten by the "BIG Lions".
More remakes will abound us since storytelling will fall by the wayside due to the newer, agressive younger generation that is already upon us.
Digital could finally be improved to low maintenance presentation devices, but will always be a changing force since newer and better seems to be the norm. Film fotography will always be there due to the diehard camera operators and cinematographers still believe in this medium.
I'll stay home and watch my old movies on my projection system to be safe and sound.
-Monte
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2005, 04:29 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
More remakes will abound us since storytelling will fall by the wayside
This is one prediction that's already coming true -- anyone look at next summer's schedule yet?
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-16-2005, 06:44 AM:
Bah, film remakes have been around since before any of us were born. Nothing new with that.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-16-2005, 07:29 AM:
A few more comments:
I don't see broadcast television going away in ten years. I have a hard time believing that I won't be able to turn on a(n) (HD)TV set in 2015 and watch ABC, NBC, and CBS on it. The networks survived cable, and will be able to survive whatever comes next, at least for the forseeable future, though their market share will surely decrease.
I also don't think that video projection in theatres will do anything to change the basic business model of the industry. By 2015, the resolution will probably be just as good as that of a quality 35mm print, but it still won't "look" quite the same (for better or worse). If anything, will make it more difficult for small independent distributors to get their product into theatres, when compared with 35mm. Film scanning, film recording, and film technology itself will, of course, continue to improve.
Mike's theatre, drive-ins, and other non-multiplex venues should do well. If I owned a dumpy second-run multiplex, however, I'd be looking to get rid of it now.
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-16-2005, 09:04 AM:
Digital shouldnt have too big of an effect on properly run theaters, regardless of size. If a theater is well managed, employees are treated fairly, the booth is run as close to perfect as possible, and the customers are respected, then I dont see the big deal. Like someone stated above, the customers dont care how the movie is presented, just as long as its somewhat better than what they can get at home. Bad movies are still gonna be bad, regardless of how much money was spent on the projector. Digital wont be the reason for alot of theaters closing...greedy distributors, and greedy corporations will. I'm almost certain the reason theaters like Mike's have been open so long, is because of how they treat their employees. They actually care about them, and dont see them as just another idiot working concession. Their employees are happier, the customer sees this, and they choose to go to Mikes theater instead of the multiplex down the street. Unfortunately, their are a few other independent theater owners that dont care about their employees either, and those are the ones that deserve to fail.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-16-2005, 10:39 AM:
I don't see the doom and gloom for small town theatres that some people on the forum do. This is for one reason:
Digital Cinema will make it super easy to get copies of the movie.
Right now really small theatres can't get whatever movie they want when they want it, because of the cost of the prints. Once it costs just a little to make a "vertial" print, the studios will give it to whomever is willing to pay the terms.
Also, I'm not worried about being able to get projectors. Once the big boys upgrade, the market will be flooded with projectors at a low cost. Sure, we won't have the latest and greatest, but we don't have that now.
-Matt
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-16-2005, 11:42 AM:
quote: Matt Fields
Sure, we won't have the latest and greatest
Dont you think that sometime down the road, you're gonna have to buy the "latest and greatest" in order to obtain certain movies? I can picture it now, emails from distributors..."In order to ensure that you will be able to show Star Wars Episode 10, be sure your projectors have been upgraded to the version 9.0, if they are not, you will have no sound to the movie." Its gonna happen, and theaters will be able to afford the upgrades, but they will have to sacrifice in other places, like paid employee training for these new systems.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-16-2005, 12:14 PM:
Why would it be in the best interest of the studios to get rid of customers? - Matt
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-16-2005, 12:37 PM:
I dont think I implied that it was...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2005, 01:15 PM:
quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
Bah, film remakes have been around since before any of us were born. Nothing new with that.
Yes, but they weren't 75% or more of the tent-pole, essential films. I'm not just talking remakes, but sequels and TV adaptations too. They're easier to sell than original ideas, so that's why they're so prevalent.
quote: Matt Fields
I don't see the doom and gloom for small town theatres that some people on the forum do. This is for one reason:
Digital Cinema will make it super easy to get copies of the movie.
I was thinking about this: Supposedly the studios are going to pay for the DC by paying "virtual print fees" for each digital "print" delivered. Well, we play a new movie every week, sometimes two in a week. Whereas a multiplex in a city will sometimes play the same print for 8 weeks or more. So taken on the basis of "print fees" generated per auditorium, a small place like ours might be able to generate more in those "print fees" than we might initially think.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-16-2005, 01:32 PM:
It is not difficult to get any print now. Whenever you hear that, you are hearing the "interaction" between certain bookers and distribution. I personally know of many small one screen theatres that can get any print they want, BUT not with certain bookers. (non-competitive situations) Louis
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-16-2005, 03:06 PM:
And speaking of interaction, don't overlook that the media in the future will provide an interactive experience for the viewer/participant. They will have the ability to become part of the very entertainment they are watching. Don't think so? Well, just look at the popularity of video games. Now to the subject of fat Internet pipes at the home. OC3 (155 Mbps) will be commonplace when fibre get deployed in the local loop. The backbone will be running at terabit speeds, offering no contention for resources at the local end. Bandwidth will be a commodity, and a cheap one at that. So what do I see for the exhibitor down the road? Change with the times, offer special venue and great customer service or be left behind. Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-16-2005, 04:01 PM:
quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Unfortunately, their are a few other independent theater owners that dont care about their employees either, and those are the ones that deserve to fail.
Boy! If that ain't the blessed truth - mainly that they don't know what the frik they are doing or know how to run a THEATRE BUSINESS! They may know HOW to run a business, but do they know HOW to run a THEATRE BUSINESS..big difference there, I would say.
Once again, and I don't mean to put Mike on a pedestal above all of the other "indies",(even though he deserves it since he earned it), but with his example of running the ROXY is a good example of how an "indie" can run a THEATRE BUSINESS and others should take lessons.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2005, 04:21 PM:
Lots of things will be easily possible when you have a 100Mb or faster Internet pipe running into your house or office. It could certainly kill off the current way we rent or buy movies. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray could very well be the last disc-based formats. We may get future video formats off whatever newfangled pipe can stream it.
Stuff like real-time HD video teleconferencing will hit first. Then people will be using HD quality web cams to talk to each other. They may even do that wirelessly. This has the potential of rapidly growing the number of "telecommuter" type office workers in our nation's workforce (or worse, outsourcing even more jobs offshore). On the bright side, not nearly as many cars will be on the roads. More gas price spikes will help encourage growth in the telecommuter workforce.
Cellular phone companies may have to merge their services and businesses into the Internet realm. VOIP-type home and mobile video capable phone use will be pretty common in 2015. Some cellular phones are fixing to hit the marketplace with switchable VOIP or cell service capability (if they're not already available).
quote: Scott Norwood
I don't see broadcast television going away in ten years.
The major broadcast networks and cable outlets will still be around. But the IP-based thing will allow viewers to have access to lots more programming. IP-only based networks are certain to appear and I think there will be a lot of them, particularly international ones. The major networks will survive on the basis of their higher production budgets and more professional production values. That's a factor that will always be there regardless of whether the moving image is film, analog video or digital streaming video over IP. IP will be best at providing lots of different video on demand services. I would expect a network like ABC to have its main broadcast channel, but then have a bunch of Internet outlets for you to repeat view other stuff. Shows that simply get cancelled from a programming slate today may simply be shifted to play out the rest of their run via an Internet site.
Here's the area where TV stations have to be worried. If the station is not in a top 10 or top 20 market, it very likely must survive by ad dollars it generates for itself through local advertising. Major broadcast TV networks have only half the ratings they had back in the 1980s. The audience numbers are gong to get divided up even further as technology improves and provides an more immense number of entertainment choices. Top that off with the probability Americans are going to be increasing their work weeks further just to stay competitive in the global marketplace. Not as much time for being a couch potato. All that stuff equals lower ratings. Businesses won't be willing to pay as much for a TV commercial. Narrow the margins too much and the station won't survive. At least not in a full-fledged sense. When you see small market stations give their news crews the axe and turn into a kind of soul-less automated radio station then you'll know the end is near for that market.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-16-2005, 06:47 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
Contrary to many opinions, I don't think going to the movies costs enough. Raising the price would filter out the elements that aren't there to enjoy the movie. They'll go to the theater down the road and annoy their customers and staff. I would be more than happy to pay 50% - 100% more for a movie ticket, if I knew that the experience was going to be top-notch from the time I walk in the door to the time I get back in my car. Heck, I'd probably pay more than that if the experience was consistently the best it could possibly be. I have yet to attend a theater which would qualify as anything more than "acceptable."
I pay 360 dollars four times a year to take my wife and daughter to the ballet. Thats 120 a ticket. For two hours of entertainment.
People would pay a premium price for a premium experience.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yes, it's fun to dream, but reality wakes us up and we have to live within that world of reality ... so what do you do in the meantime and that is "live with it"
Here is a list of people who were warned against thier dreamer mentality, that what they were doint would never work.
Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
The guy who started Jet Blue
The guy who started Southwest Airlines
Thomas Monahan (dominos founder)
The guy who started chick fil a (that is NEVER open on sunday)
and so on..
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Forget what the industry tells us, make a new industry!
Good business is where you find it. (robocop)
Ciao
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-16-2005, 10:25 PM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
It is not difficult to get any print now. Whenever you hear that, you are hearing the "interaction" between certain bookers and distribution.
It's true that anyone can get a print of the blockbusters these days, and currently I get about everything I want on the break. But not everything is a superwide release.
"Dreamer" was a good recent example. It opened in 2004 theatres. This did not include small town two screens in the middle of nowhere, or my four screen in Ohio. I don't care if Jesus is your booker, your not getting it if you don't put up the grosses to get you in the top 2004 theatres. It did okay and Dreamworks did expand the second week, to 2700 or so theatres. I did get it that second week.
The release pattern would have been different if everyone was digital and the digital transition was over. It would cost a couple of bucks to make a digital copy of Dreamer and everyone (the whole 2700 or more theatres) would have gotten a copy on the break.
[ 11-17-2005, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Matt Fields ]
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-17-2005, 07:36 AM:
I see the future this way...
First, a wave of multiplexes will close when digital cinema gets going full steam as exhibitors look at their current bottom line and decide if they're worth the investment of upgrading. Slope seating cinemas will become all but extinct in all but small markets.
As digital cinema gets rolling and product is easily distributed, multiplexes featuring independent/small flicks will crop up in the form of modern five-to-ten plexes in more upscale versions of these new "lifestyle centers" where shops and residential development are combined. Some of these will restrict attendance to adults. Adults will LOVE these.
Somebody will finally invent something new that people will buy at snack bars. It will be hailed as the first major revolution in movie food in fifty years and be credited with providing the industry with its best profit increases since popcorn.
Finally, I will still be there, as I always have, watching matinees and poking fun at y'all in the "Film Handlers Movie Reviews" forum, and smiling as people take it too seriously.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-17-2005, 11:55 AM:
My prediction for the inevitability of digital cinema is based solely on the continuous drive the technology has been on, and the fact that in any industry, when something costs less to produce, distribute, and sell, it will be implemented once the initial costs of doing so have reached a satisfactory level.
From everything I have read, this applies to digital cinema. It should take less time to prepare a movie, less time and resources to distribute it, and (hopefully) less effort to present it. I think they have reached the quality level as well, so now it's just up to the last factor of the initial cost.
I'm definitely not saying that theaters that screw up film projection won't figure out a way to screw up digital projection, since things still need to be monitored, maintained, and updated from time to time. However, I think a fully digital operation will be easier and cheaper to maintain, especially after the growing pains of figuring out the idiosyncrasies of digital projection.
My desire to see digital projection succeed isn't so much because I'm all for everything digital, but I am all for anything that will assist theaters to provide at least a consistently reliable and decent presentation. Customers don't care how it's being projected so long as it's done well.
The marketing surrounding the latest advances (digital sound, stadium seating, digital cinema, THX) has given the customer the impression (correctly or not) that their experience will be better because of these things.
It's amazing to me how many theaters don't get the fact that pleasing the customer and delivering a high quality movie-going experience is their primary mission. I can watch a movie at home on my 100+" wide screen and surround sound, and I can pop my own popcorn and even buy candy in the same type of boxes that theaters serve. But that requires me to do a lot of the work, and sometimes I want someone else to take care of things for me instead. It should be a no-brainer for a professional operation to deliver that.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I agree, but the bottom line is called money - just not feasable to have a well trained operator for every screen that can garnish a decent career wage to keep then there, or not every circuit can garnish positive attitude towards their employees so that they feel as in doing a good service to ensure this high standard of exhibition when the money isn't along with the positive attitude.
Some circuits are close to this dream and have achieved it very well with tremendous success in their operations. Others..well...you know the rest of the story.
Yes, it's fun to dream, but reality wakes us up and we have to live within that world of reality ... so what do you do in the meantime and that is "live with it"
It's a chicken and egg problem. Theaters who can't serve their customers well will die because customers will not continue to pay high prices and waste their valuable time for substandard service. This is happening now, and it's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the pain the industry will suffer if it can't figure out the basic truths about being in a service-oriented business.
If it's not feasible to have a trained operator for every screen, then something needs to be done to the operation so that it doesn't need as much babysitting. Wouldn't an automated system take care of some of that load? That's my understanding, but I could be wrong.
How much time would it take for a manager or other staff member to float into each screen at least once during each showing to make sure that the presentation was going well, and that there wasn't a bunch of people causing a disturbance?
In one of the first business classes I took, the most salient point the teacher made was that if you are operating on a shoestring budget, you'll never succeed. You'll be so intent on saving and managing money that you won't have time to concentrate on the operations and direction of the business. While this was being applied to entrepreneurships, I think it applies to established businesses as well.
I've seen businesses so worried about every penny, that they forgot to service the customer well, and brought about their own demise as a result. Could this be the case with many theaters?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2005, 01:28 PM:
The case with a lot of theaters, mainly the large chains, is they're mainly driven to just cut costs more and more to improve the appearances of the next quarterly report. In that mindset, investing in items that actually can improve the bottom line get lost. You have to spend money to improve standards of presentation quality. It takes money to maintain those higher presentation standards. You have to pay more to attract and retain qualified booth personnel. Finally, I think it takes more than a minimum wage paycheck to build a lobby staff that can actually deliver good customer service. You get the good old revolving door of high turnover employees otherwise.
The sad thing is cost cutting game is getting forced onto just about every movie theater circuit all thanks to movie distributors running the same game. The primary motive behind digital projection is about cutting costs, not improving presentation quailty. They'll sell you a lot of lip service about how video is better than film. But they really want to stop spending millions of 35mm film prints.
Movie theater companies are chasing profitability like it is a moving target. With every new stunt distributors pull against them, they have to "adjust" for those changes. That typically means even more cost cutting, which translates into lower paychecks, fewer employees working as few hours as possible and then declining levels of customer service and presentation quality.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2005, 02:52 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I don't mean to put Mike on a pedestal above all of the other "indies"
Thanks for the compliments Monte. My little movie house is far from perfect (I'm sure there are any number of Film-Techers who could find about 1,000 things wrong with it--I could rattle off quite a wish-list myself). But, that gives me a constant challenge to keep improving it, and the customers notice these efforts.
I think the most important thing, aside from the good presentation and good popcorn, is that people see money going back in to the business. This makes them feel good about spending their bucks. If people feel they're getting good value for their money, they don't mind spending it. The only people who complain about any of our prices are clueless kids who just don't "get it."
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2005, 03:06 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I think the most important thing, aside from the good presentation and good popcorn, is that people see money going back in to the business.
That? As opposed to the bucks going into a journeyman film distribution company CEO's pockets (in the form of a huge bonus the board pays him), or into the pockets of share holders as part of a little dividend check per share?
The money truly does need to go back into the business, on the front lines -which essentially means into the movie theaters. I'm not very optimistic there's enough interest to do that. In the long run the policy would be profitable. But our business culture these days is so much about the short term gain.
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-19-2005, 06:23 PM:
I gotta tell you Bobby that I generally agree with what you say in many of your posts. However, some of your comments in this particular thread, would lead me to think one would witness a revolt among the working class before it gets as bad as you say.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2005, 07:06 PM:
Any "revolt among the working class" is impossible for a variety of reasons. If most movie theaters are simply allowed to fail there's nothing we'll be able to do about it. It will just happen.
Even if distribution companies do take an active role in helping movie theaters stay viable, there's no telling what will happen 10 years from now. I mentioned the factor computers and the state of the Internet 10 years from now will pose. There's a hell of a lot of unpredictable possibility in that.
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-19-2005, 08:33 PM:
No, the success of such a revolt is "impossible". What I simply meant was your situations in which average workers are phased out by technology is very much a doomsday senario by any means. Historically, of course, this has happened, but there was always some recourse for the displaced worker. In my European courses I teach the peasant became the colonist. In the American courses, the manufacturing sector became the service sector. But in this post-industrial age, what recourse does the displaced worker have?
I'm not a communist, nor do I consider myself a pin-head academic, yet I'm not so sure I'm ready to admit I'm a peasant . . .
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2005, 09:32 PM:
But what we're mainly talking about is the future of commercial movie theaters 10 years down the road. It's certainly true that any person who gets knocked out of one job by technology will have to just do something else. People can adapt. The ability of a commercial movie theater to adapt is a bit more limited.
There is a distinct possibility that many commercial movie theaters may fall victim to a number of factors and close. I think the most threatening factor is short sighted business decisions on the part of film distribution companies. My opinion is it would be dangerous to assume the situation is just going to be hunky dory. Exhibitors have got to find some kind of way to defend their business.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-19-2005, 10:18 PM:
Does anyone think that "alternative content" (which at one point was one of the major selling points of DLP systems) will be successful in any meaningful way?
Personally, I don't see it happening, mostly because no one will want to go to a theatre to see anything during "off hours" and because film distributors generally aren't too happy about having their films cancelled in favor of alternative programming.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2005, 10:37 PM:
While "alternative content" has possibilities, the type of content still has to be appropriate for a commercial theater and be worth the price of a ticket.
To give another angle on it, certain event movies come along that get reactions from people, "I'm going to have to see that one on the big screen." I remember hearing that comment in regard to "Independence Day" and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Lots of movies get the opposite reaction, "that's one to wait for on video, if I bother to see it at all."
Sporting events are often mentioned as alternative content for video projection equipped movie theaters. I don't think that idea will fly because sport bar & grille type venues already offer that kind of programming, even pay per view programming, for free. And you get to drink beer, eat food and chat with your friends while you watch. Movie theaters don't provide that kind of environment.
I suppose some live, pay per view concerts could attract an audience. But what currently popular music act is going to draw people to a movie theater to watch a concert via satellite? Internet broadcasts are already popular and that domination will increase as computing technology relentlessly improves and Internet bandwidth gets much faster.
My opinion is the alternative content movie theaters may have to provide is certain presentations that cannot be easily duplicated at home or in a restaurant. Large format is one option. I've seen some fairly wild multimedia presentations, laser shows and other stuff like that from time to time. That can draw pretty good crowds if promoted properly.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-20-2005, 06:32 AM:
The one serious advantage digital TV has over film is immediacy. As I understand it, the wholesale cost of film is actually quite cheap, laying there on cores, developed. So far, film still has the cost advantage due to the high cost of digital distribution.
Given that nothing goes down unless the mass market (millions & millions) is involved; it looks to me that cost will stabilize at the price point of introduction or rise over time.
I think there will be "a parallel universe" for a long while. (Film companies: this is called "double inventory.")
The whole concept of Promotion means that for a film-type property, there is no requirement for immediacy; hence no requirement to go away from film.
As regards exhibition as a whole; a very few financial institutions currently run the major circuits. These people are basically bankers. Their job is to maximize profits. They see their increased profits primarily from reduced costs. The difference between these people and those who made our industry really great is that the BUILDERS understood that sometimes you have to spend money in seemingly irrational ways. We call these people SHOWMEN. Louis
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-22-2005, 08:22 AM:
Here is L.A. Times take on the future (and present) of exhibition.
THE BIG PICTURE
In a losing race with the zeitgeist
The era of moviegoing as a mass audience ritual is slowly but inexorably drawing to a close.
Patrick Goldstein
The Big Picture
November 22, 2005
Showbiz people are prone to exaggeration, but when everybody is exaggerating about the same thing, you know something bad is happening. There's a dark cloud of unease hovering over Hollywood. A top CAA agent calls it "mayhem." A studio marketer says "it feels like Armageddon." A production chief puts it this way: "Each weekend there's more blood in the water."
Malcolm Gladwell might call it a tipping point.
The era of moviegoing as a mass audience ritual is slowly but inexorably drawing to a close, eroded by many of the same forces that have eviscerated the music industry, decimated network TV and, yes, are clobbering the newspaper business. Put simply, an explosion of new technology — the Internet, DVDs, video games, downloading, cellphones and iPods — now offers more compelling diversion than 90% of the movies in theaters, the exceptions being "Harry Potter"-style must-see events or the occasional youth-oriented comedy or thriller.
Anywhere you look, the news has been grim. Disney just reported a $313-million loss for films and DVDs in its fiscal fourth quarter. Sony has had a disastrous year, with only one $100-million hit ("Hitch") among a string of costly flops. DreamWorks not only has had theatrical duds but also saw its stock plummet when its "Shrek 2" DVD sales fell 5 million short of expectations. Even Warners, the industry's best-run studio, laid off 400 staffers earlier this month.
Although the media have focused on the economic issues behind this slump, the problem is cultural too. It's become cool to dismiss movies as awful. Wherever I go, teenagers say, with chillingly casual adolescent contempt, that movies suck and cost too much — the same stance they took about CDs when the music business went into free fall. When MPAA chief Dan Glickman goes to colleges, preaching his anti-piracy gospel, kids hiss, telling him his efforts don't help the public, only a few rich media giants. Say what you will about their logic, but, as anyone in the music business can attest, those sneers are the deadly sign of a truly disgruntled consumer.
There are still optimists who say the sky isn't falling, who insist that a few hits will turn things around, or gas prices will come down, or that the business being off 7% this year has more to do with the absence of a left-field sensation such as "The Passion of the Christ" than a long-term decline in moviegoing.
To them, I say — go ye to Costco or Best Buy and watch the giant HDTVs zooming out the door, the TVs that used to cost $7500 that now go for $1995 and allow middle-class people to have a marvelous moviegoing experience right at home without $10.50 tickets, $4 popcorn, 20 minutes of annoying commercials and some guy in the next row yakking away on his cellphone.
Once people spend all that money on a home entertainment system, they've got to feed the machine. I've watched friends who used to regularly go to theaters mutate into adjunct professors in DVD-ology, scanning the ads for the new video releases and rhapsodizing over Netflix the way other people swoon over TiVo or XM radio.
This only highlights the biggest crack in the system: that most of the movies in theaters don't deserve a theatrical release, at least not by the rules of today's game. Until the DVD and pay TV money kicks in, they're money losers. Yet the studios are forced to spend more marketing money every year to chase after increasingly resistant moviegoers, then go dark for months before spending another big chunk to remind people the DVD has arrived.
The studios have no one but themselves to blame. Motivated, as always, by an obsession with quarterly earnings, they began shrinking the DVD window from nine months to six months to 90 days. Universal's "The Skeleton Key," which opened in theaters in mid-August, made its DVD debut last week, barely three months later. When the six-month window still held sway, the theater beckoned — half a year felt like a long time away. Three months seems like just around the corner. All too many movies, even ones with big stars in them, including "The Weather Man," "In Her Shoes" and "Dreamer," have died on the vine, with millions of Americans staring at the TV spots and thinking, "I'll wait and see that on DVD."
And that's just the adult side of the equation. What's really driving the studio folks crazy is that a huge chunk of their core constituency — young moviegoers — has evaporated. Poof! They've scattered to the winds. Young males aren't just AWOL from movie theaters, they're also not seeing the studio's TV ads — either because they've stopped watching TV altogether, or because they've got the TV, iPod and IM all going at the same time — not exactly a situation in which an ad leaves much of an imprint. The only movies that are reliable drawing cards today are behemoths such as "War of the Worlds" or "Harry Potter," or cheap youth-oriented genre films such as "Saw II" or "The 40 Year-Old Virgin."
One of the movie industry's crucial failings is that it's simply too slow to keep up with the lightning speed of new technology. Who would've believed six months ago that the day after "Desperate Housewives" aired on ABC you could download the whole show on your video iPod? But when someone pitches a movie, it takes at least 18 to 24 months — if not far longer — between conception and delivery to the movie theaters. In a world now dominated by the Internet, studios are at a huge disadvantage in terms of ever lassoing the zeitgeist. Everybody is making movies based on video games, but it seems clear from the abject failure of movies such as "Doom" that it's almost impossible, given the slow pace of filmmaking, to launch a video game movie before the game has started to lose its sizzle.
New technology is also accelerating word of mouth. Thanks to instant messaging and BlackBerries, bad buzz about a bad movie hits the streets fast enough to stop suckers from lining up to see a new stinker. Even worse, the people who run studios are living in such cocoons that they've become wildly out of touch with reality.
That's the only explanation for why Sony Pictures could've imagined there was any compelling reason this summer to see a wan remake of "Bewitched." Or why any of the studio's highly paid executives didn't wonder why it should shoehorn an obscure family movie into the one-week window between the Disney-powered "Chicken Little" and the latest "Harry Potter" juggernaut, especially when the movie, "Zathura," has a title that sounds like it should be followed by the warning "side effects may include leakage or sexual dysfunction."
The ultimate perk of being a studio chief is having your own screening room, which puts only more distance between you and the rabble — ahem, your customers — who spend $75 to take the family to a movie. Too often studio people have the same ideas about the same things, a groupthink that has led to them anointing one Hot New Thing after another, from Josh Hartnett to Brittany Murphy to Kate Hudson to Colin Farrell, who've yet to connect with rank 'n file filmgoers.
What should studios do to come to grips with this new era? In a world bursting at the seams with new technology, it's hard to justify the antiquated idea of studio development, which keeps churning out movies such as "Be Cool," an Elmore Leonard novel from 1999 that was hilariously out of date by the time it reached theaters, having a storyline that revolved around Chili Palmer's exploits in the music business, perhaps the least cool place on the planet.
Hollywood needs a new mindset, one that sees a movie as something that comes in all shapes and sizes, not something that is wedded to the big screen. Studios have to do what record companies refused to do until they nearly went out of business: embrace the future.
People increasingly want to see movies on their terms, today on a big TV at home, tomorrow on an iPod or cellphone. It breaks my heart that people have fallen out of love with movie theaters, but if I were king, I'd start releasing any movie with multi-generational appeal on DVD at the same time it hit theaters, so the kids could get out of the house and the parents could watch at home.
The music business has already adopted this two-tier system, selling downloads and CDs simultaneously. TV networks are starting to do the same thing with their shows. It's only a matter of time before movies are forced to do the same. The day isn't far away — desperation being a great motivator for innovation — when a studio opens a blockbuster on Friday in theaters and on Saturday on pay-per-view (at $75 a shot) so fans could watch it with a bunch of friends at home.
As it stands, Hollywood has become a prisoner of a corporate mindset that is squeezing the entrepreneurial vitality out of the system. It's not just that studios are making bad movies — they've been doing that for years. They've lost touch with any real cultural creativity. When you walk down the corridors at Apple or a video game company, there's an electricity in the air that encourages people into believing they could dream up a new idea that could blow somebody's mind.
At the big studios, the creative voltage is sometimes so low that you wonder if you've wandered into an insurance office. The dreamers have left the building. Back in the 1950s, David Selznick, out walking one night with Ben Hecht, glumly said, "Hollywood's like Egypt, full of crumbling pyramids. It'll just keep on crumbling until finally the wind blows the last studio prop across the sands." As I said, show people like to exaggerate, but these days when I go around Hollywood, I can see the crumbling pyramids too.
"The Big Picture" runs Tuesdays in Calendar. Comments or criticism can be e-mailed to patrick.goldstein@latimes.com.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-22-2005, 09:52 AM:
This article has many truths to it, however misses one all important truth; movies cost money to make.
Movie studios are well aware that they cannot make thier money back by dumping theatrical exhibition and the window they grant it. The problem is that as the window shrinks, so does the money garnered from the theater showings, making the DVD sales that much more important.
The music industry rightfully went through this downfall, as the price of cd's was way too expensive, and the cost of producing albums became problematic. Fans still saw live shows in support of the album by the artist, and the price of downloading individual songs has leveled the playing field for the consumer.
The movie industry will have a much more difficult time adjusting to "new technologies" than the music industry did. This involves a medium that is visual and audio, not just audio as its primary source. Visuals cost money, and money is precisely what the consumer is trying to avoid paying. There has to be balance, and the consumer is not bright enough to realize that they will not get any better quality movie or experience by demanding cheaper and quicker content.
The studios need to adopt a different philosophy here. First of all, start paying actors based on returns, not on thier expected draw. This will reduce production budgets, and allow for actors to start attaching to films that have a greater chance for higher returns instead of to any old film because they pay them ungodly millions just for walking onto the sound stage.
Secondly, the DVD release window should be directly proportionate to the first four weeks returns. If a film tanks in four weeks, then by all means get it to DVD as soon as possible, making room in the theater for some other movie to try its game.
Let's forget this same day dvd or pay per view release window crap. It will kill movie theaters in the long run, which is 60 percent of the industries money. It would be suicide. It is much different than shutting down all those mom and pop record stores, they didn't present the music, they just sold it. The theater provides a unique viewing experience. No matter how you slice it, no one can fit a 60 foot screen and a sound system designed by nasa and run from the space station into thier living room. A 42 inch plasma screen is not a movie theater, and anyone who thinks so is deluding themselves.
Ciao
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 11-22-2005, 10:52 AM:
There is a HUGE difference between the music industry and the film industry. What people revolted about music wise was being forced to buy a whole CD (for close to $20) when they really only wanted 1 or 2 songs off of it.
And as far as DVD's go, I think the shrinking window is hurting the studios. Look at Star Wars EP III. It was for sale at under $15 at Wal-Mart and Target. Even at that low price, it was only the top selling DVD for 1 week. The window is so short, there's nothing special about the DVD.
With good movies and a long enough window, the studios could make a lot more by getting repeat viewings. Once at the theatre and then a DVD purchase or rental. I just saw EPIII a couple of months back. Why would I want to buy it now?
The main technology issue that the studios should deal with is simultaneous PPV with DVD release. I don't want to go to blockbuster. I hate going to blockbuster. Why won't they let me watch on PPV until weeks later? In this case, they are just protecting video stores for no potential gain.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-22-2005, 01:40 PM:
Warners could have made a yearly seasonal classic out of Polar Express. Instead they chose to DVD it for huge one-time sales, and they withdrew all the 35mm prints so the Imax release could be "exclusive" this year. We would like to play Polar for a holiday show this year, but can't. There are probably thousands of other locations that are in the same boat. The nearest Imax playing the movie is 900 miles from here. The studios are run by big-city, corporate suits, who don't know or care how the middle 2000 miles of the country works.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-22-2005, 01:46 PM:
That article had a lot of really good points, with a few that were off the mark as well.
I would agree that the studios are shooting theaters in the foot with the smaller release windows, but I don't necessarily think that gun is also aiming back at them. So long as people enjoy watching movies, movie makers will exist in some form. I don't think that theaters have the same assurance of survival, because they're caught in the crossfire.
Perhaps it's just my local market (Milwaukee, WI), but I don't think I have ever seen a TV ad for a theater. Why not? It's common marketing sense that you have to advertise to get business, and when business is slow and money is tight, you need to advertise even more.
Around here, the only theater advertising I've ever seen has been in the traditional newspaper movie section. Everyone who thinks that newspaper is where your customers are, raise your hands ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
I'd be interested in hearing about alternatives that theaters have used to newspaper. Have you tried online advertising, TV, or radio? How about those ValPak coupon packs that get sent out? What has worked, and what hasn't?
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-22-2005, 01:47 PM:
Part of the problem is the music industry is in the same boat as the film co's in that their product is sub par.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-22-2005, 02:20 PM:
BRILLIANT ARTICLE!!! JUST SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-22-2005, 04:10 PM:
Something else in the long list of things that bother me: This perception that the movies are "too expensive." People don't seem to have a problem spending $30,000 for a small car, or $100,000 for a motor home, or $150 to see the Eagles in concert, or $75 to see a damn basketball game.
The movie industry needs to find a way to let people know that they're listening to a $50,000 sound system, sitting in a $200 seat, looking at a picture generated by a projector worth up to $100,000 (or whatever) in a multimillion dollar building, and the popcorn machine costs $10,000, and the film company gets 3/4 of the money they spent on their tickets. Then maybe they'll realize they are getting a frickin' bargain for their eight bucks.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 11-22-2005, 04:45 PM:
Great point Mike!
I don't know how to educate them. Perhaps something like some of the IMAX theatres do where they point out the speakers and how many watts of sound. Of course, then I guess you are risking enticing some theives!
Also, I think good customer service helps. It's like a restaurant where you know you can cook a burger at home for a couple of bucks but you are willing to pay $7 for the service and atmosphere. If it was just the convenience of not cooking you could go to BK or McDonalds for much cheaper.
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-22-2005, 06:15 PM:
Mike your right, and a resturant or even bowling is what I've always used as an example in comparing two hours of movie entertainment with other forms. It's one of the best bargains going!
Heck, you can't eat a full meal at McDonalds for the price of admission. And you finish that meal how fast?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-22-2005, 07:30 PM:
I agree with many of the points in Patrick Goldstein's article.
However, I think he is way off the mark trying to apply the analogy of how music is sold to movies. People don't listen to music the same way they watch movies. MP3 players, boom boxes, satellite radios and more are popular because people can be entertained by music as a background stimuli while they're doing something else. People listen to music while they work, while they exercise, while they fish, while they chat with other people, while they screw and more. You can't do that with movies.
Movies demand your attention. I've tried playing music versus movies on my 2nd computer monitor at work. I can keep working while some song plays. But if a movie is playing on the other monitor it becomes distracting.
With that stated, I don't think making movies more flexible or portable is really the right idea. A very fundamental thing is missing from mainstream movies: new ideas. Corporations who run Hollywood studios don't like new ideas. They're unpredictable. The board can't make forward looking statements and guarantee investors a dividend payment on new ideas. To them, new ideas are unproven and therefore worthless. To them, making more sequels or turning more TV shows from the past into movies is a safer and more financially responsible idea.
quote: Paul Linfesty
It's not just that studios are making bad movies — they've been doing that for years. They've lost touch with any real cultural creativity.
Movies used to be one of the primary things that drive our culture. They can still do that. Simply making a movie faster, cheaper and more flexible for more kinds of media isn't going to help. It's just going to be the same old shit, just piped out in a wider array of packaging.
It takes a lot of time and development to make a good movie. That's how it has always been. And it won't change either. If a studio works hard on more worthwhile projects rather than putting most of their development dollars behind derivative shit they're going to get audiences back into theaters and later into stores to buy DVDs.
quote: Dave Williams
This involves a medium that is visual and audio, not just audio as its primary source. Visuals cost money, and money is precisely what the consumer is trying to avoid paying. There has to be balance, and the consumer is not bright enough to realize that they will not get any better quality movie or experience by demanding cheaper and quicker content.
I disagree with that. First, I disagree with the view that customers are expecting cheaper and faster. No. That's what the corporate guys in Hollywood are expecting. That's the whole scam with shrinking release windows. Borrow a ton of other people's money and then get a return off it as fast as humanly possible to minimize those interest payments. Hollywood is honestly being run by a bunch of stodgy old bankers.
What customers are expecting is something different than the same old re-hashed "we've seen this a thousand times before" corporate boardroom formula style movie producing dreck. It's no accident DVD sales are down as well. Movies that are shitty on the big screen aren't going to smell any better on DVD. And average people have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to buy or rent some movie just because a studio spent a ton of money on it.
It kind of reminds me of a quip I heard from some movie, "you know what you get when you put shit on top of shit? You get even more shit."
Patrick Goldstein is right on the ball with one comment: the dreamers have left the building. Like them or not, they are what make the movie industry live or die. Many of the best writers have defected to television for more creativity and better paychecks. Some actors still in their prime are going the TV route.
Even the artistic types are defecting from Hollywood. When I was growing up, the "dream job" for any commercial artist was landing an animator's job at Disney or a staff job at a visual effects studio or movie production design team. The "dream job" today for lots of artsy types: game developer. The pay at video gaming studios is better and such studios are often found well outside of Hollywood in areas where the cost of living is much more tolerable.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Perhaps it's just my local market (Milwaukee, WI), but I don't think I have ever seen a TV ad for a theater. Why not? It's common marketing sense that you have to advertise to get business, and when business is slow and money is tight, you need to advertise even more.
It's a good idea, but there's a couple problems with that.
#1. Most movie theaters don't have the ad budget to support TV.
#2. TV doesn't reach anywhere near enough viewers to honestly be worth it, particularly on the local TV ad category.
Movie theaters will get more advertising bang for their buck simply by investing in their "store front personality." Decades ago most movie theaters spent serious amounts of money on fancy marquees and blade signs blazing with neon. And most of these theaters were single screen houses, or perhaps twins. Even drive in theaters had some cool signs. Lots of new theaters have pretty boring looking signs that don't really stand out from the average restaurant sign or anything else. Some are very plain. And I'm not even getting into the signs that have fallen into disrepair.
Of course, elaborate blazing neon, chase light-encrusted displays cost a pretty decent amount of money. And then they cost some money to maintain. The banker mentality takeover of an otherwise creative industry has led to just about every aspect getting more conservative and boring. That's exactly what the movie industry does not need.
quote: Mike Blakesley
People don't seem to have a problem spending $30,000 for a small car, or $100,000 for a motor home, or $150 to see the Eagles in concert, or $75 to see a damn basketball game.
For most people, a car is a necessity. But not everyone spends $30,000 on a car. I see a lot of people driving "pre-owned" cars around here. The other items mentioned are high extravagances. Even if I had a lot of money to throw around, I wouldn't pay $150 for a concert ticket.
For a great deal of people, a trip to a first run theater is indeed an expensive item. Many of the folks who can drop $50 or more to take their family to the movies are still staying away because there's so much high profile bad product out there. Sure, some good movies are available. But most people aren't going to do a bunch of research to find out what's worth seeing. It's too much trouble to them and they can always resort to other forms of entertainment, such as that new XBox360 sitting in front of them.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 11-22-2005, 08:44 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie theaters will get more advertising bang for their buck simply by investing in their "store front personality."
This is a great point. In florida we have a bunch of Muvico theatres. All of the new built ones seem to be packed all the time. Muvico spends a ton of money making themed theatres (outside and in the lobby). There is nothing spectacular about their presentation but people flock there because of the building. Now there is some debate about the return on investment they are getting because from what I've heard their construction costs are twice what other chains pay but it does put asses in the seats.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-22-2005, 10:13 PM:
The whole idea is planting the name brand bug in someone's head in the most efficient manner possible. Effective store front signs do that better than any other form of advertising media. If the sign is effective, when a customer thinks about seeing a movie not only will they think about that movie chain they'll remember that specific theater location as well.
To get back to the negative perception thing, General Motors has made big news over the last couple days. They're going to shut down a big assembly plant in Oklahoma City, and over 2000 people will lose their jobs. Yay!
GM and other American auto companies are in trouble for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest factors is the long standing negative perception of American car quality. Even when a good American made car is built, the constant drone coming from most customers in knee-jerk response is, "buy a Honda." Most customers aren't going to search around to find a good American car. They're just going to put that glob of grey mush in their skull on auto pilot and just buy Japanese. Simple as that.
The American car companies are allowing that to continue because they are approaching their business like bankers rather than guys who make cars. The Ford 500? BORING!!!!!!!!! The only thing the American car companies can sell well at all is pickup trucks and SUVs. I say that's only happening because another demographic of customers has had their brains on auto pilot as well. But high gas prices have changed that. And now they're starting to buy small Japanese (and Korean) cars too.
It doesn't matter how one tries to argue how much of a bargain a trip to the movies may be. When the customer starts seeing more bad movies than not, and having bad overall experiences at the theater they're going to stay at home.
GM and Ford need to reinvent themselves, very aggressively. They need to study what companies like Apple Computer did to become successful. I'm not talking the beginnings of Apple either. Apple was in deep trouble in the late 1990s. But then everything turned around. Very good yet remarkably different products were at the center of that.
I think the movie industry has a more simple path to follow. They've gotta start taking chances again. It's the only way how they're going to start releasing ground-breaking movies again.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-22-2005, 10:45 PM:
Bobby, your store-front point is a good one. There is a theatre at Thanksgiving Point, Utah -- fairly new 8-plex -- with an absolutely beautiful, old-fashioned triangular marquee. (Mark G -- maybe you've got a picture of it?) Anyway, my wife and I made a 20 mile drive out of our way last year to go see a movie there, simply because of that sign. It's awesome.
quote: Bobby Henderson
For most people, a car is a necessity. But not everyone spends $30,000 on a car. I see a lot of people driving "pre-owned" cars around here. The other items mentioned are high extravagances. Even if I had a lot of money to throw around, I wouldn't pay $150 for a concert ticket.
I guess my point was that many of the same people who are bitching about movie prices are the ones buying the expensive cars, concert tickets and etc. People seem to have the ability to find the money to buy what they REALLY think they want, whether they can afford it or not. So our job is to get people to REALLY want to go out to the movies. If we can do that, the money will magically be there.
[ 11-23-2005, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-23-2005, 07:55 PM:
Mike Blakesley said:
"Warners could have made a yearly seasonal classic out of Polar Express. Instead they chose to DVD it for huge one-time sales, and they withdrew all the 35mm prints so the Imax release could be "exclusive" this year. We would like to play Polar for a holiday show this year, but can't. There are probably thousands of other locations that are in the same boat. The nearest Imax playing the movie is 900 miles from here. The studios are run by big-city, corporate suits, who don't know or care how the middle 2000 miles of the country works."
Right on, Mike, and for that matter, here on the east coast as well. They took a wonderful picture and gave it a rotten opening date. It should have been released after Thanksgiving last year, not before. And... the marketing for this release was horrendous as well.
I don't think the suits at Warners realized what a gem they had here. As usual, adherence to the "formula" and downright greed won the day. And lest there are those who are thinking this is "Monday mnorning quarterbacking", I was saying these very same things this time last year, along with a lot of other people in the exhibition field.
But who the hell pays attention to exh ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
ibs? Everyone knows the distribs have "All The Right Moves". ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-28-2005, 04:15 PM:
quote:
#1. Most movie theaters don't have the ad budget to support TV.
#2. TV doesn't reach anywhere near enough viewers to honestly be worth it, particularly on the local TV ad category.
I suspected as much, but there's gotta be some air-time that's affordable. I see some pretty small businesses advertising during non-primetime hours.
How about billboards?
quote: Lyle Romer
In florida we have a bunch of Muvico theatres. All of the new built ones seem to be packed all the time. Muvico spends a ton of money making themed theatres (outside and in the lobby). There is nothing spectacular about their presentation but people flock there because of the building. Now there is some debate about the return on investment they are getting because from what I've heard their construction costs are twice what other chains pay but it does put asses in the seats.
I agree completely with this sentiment. There are some pretty boring theater marquees around here, and one chain is so dominant that when you've seen one of their marquee's, you've literally seen them all. It's like the McDonalds golden arches, and even they break things up once in a while with their themed restaurants...
While at ShowEast, one of the showings was at the Muvico Pointe 21(?) in Orlando, and that was place was a wonder to behold!
It was such a refreshing change of pace, that I couldn't stop telling people about it when I got back.
While I understand that there are financial realities at work in the industry, I don't understand the shortsightedness of not understanding the showmanship part of the equation. I've seen photos of DIY home theaters that are done better than most multiplexes!
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-29-2005, 09:01 AM:
Bankers/investment people run most circuits. Showmen are rare/endangered. Louis
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 11-29-2005, 10:00 AM:
The Banker types don't like to spend the extra money on the fancy building because the benefit can't be directly measured.
You can't easily justify the cost until someone else comes to town, builds a better place, and cripples your business!
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2