Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A True Home Theater

This is topic A True Home Theater 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=001631

Posted by Tom Lewandowski (Member # 3371) on 02-17-2006, 08:44 AM:

This short article appears in the March 2006 issue of Popular Science.

A True Home Theatre

Kiss the multiplex goodbye. First-run movies are coming to your living room
By Bilge Ebiri
Popular Science March 2006

Going to the movies today: You drive to the ginormoplex, fight for parking, empty your wallet on tickets and stale popcorn, and the brave the catcalls of 500 other "patrons" to watch an out-of-focus print of the latest blockbuster.

But image this: On the same day a film hits theatres, you pay $20 online, punch a code into a remote control, and enjoy a high-definition digital stream of that same blockbuster on your plasma TV - Legally. Sound too good to be true? It's not. Slowly but surely, the major studios are coming around to the idea of releasing films simultaneously across a variety of platforms. "I think everyone agrees it's inevitable," say Patrick Goldstein, a film columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

So why the early resistance? For starters, Hollywood claims it loses $3 billion a year to piracy, so the thought of sending high-quality digital films straight to people's homes has the industry scared to death. But that's just outdated paranoia. Digital-rights management (DRM), which keep media from being spread illegally, has come of age. The studios already rely on Microsoft DRM for online movie rental sites such as CinemaNow, Movielink and the new Starz Vongo.

"All the pieces are in place for this to work," say Joe Kane, a display consultant who advises technology companies such as Samsung. Indeed, the only hardware required is a hard drive, a stable operating system and a high definition decoder, all of which can be found in you TiVo or in the digital video recorder from you cable company.

But getting all the major players to agree on the universal standard may prove difficult. Many studios already have distribution or DRM agreements with competing services such as Apple and AOL. This means that early boxes might play only movies from cerain studios.

Then there are the theater owners, who promise to fight any technology that gives people an alternative to the cineplex. Last year, Disney CEO Rober Iger reportedly wanted to sell DVDs of Chicken Little at theaters showing the film. It didn't work. "If you try to sell DVDs in the lobby," Goldstein says, "the theaters aren't going to show you movie."

Well, some theaters. Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner, the duo behind multimedia company Broadcast.com, also own the Landmark Theatres chain, the production company 2929 Entertainment and the HDNet channel. In January they inaugurated a new series of films with the release of Bubble , a low-budget thriller directed by Steven Soderbergh. It was shown on HDNet Movies, screened at Landmark Theatres, and release on DVD, all at the same time.

Whether this vision of a convergent future comes to fruition doesn't depend on the success of Bubble . But if Cuban's experiment works, you can bet that the major studios will take notice - and that your living-room theater will arrive even sooner than they'd like.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-17-2006, 09:14 AM:

quote: Tom Lewandowski
Sound too good to be true? It's not.

At least they got one thing right.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-17-2006, 09:29 AM:

I've had this conspiracy theory (probably a lot of others too) that the studios are trying to cut out the middle man (theaters) for a while now. All this push to digital is just paving the road for direct to consumer marketing by the bean counters in Hollywood.

(My conspiracy theory for the day) [Eek!]

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 02-17-2006, 09:59 AM:

quote: Greg Mueller
the studios are trying to cut out the middle man (theaters) for a while now

Considering that theatres are the best marketing program for soon-to-be released DVD's this doesn't make sense (as if it has to dealing with distributors!) There is consistent evidence that there is a correlation between how well a film does at the theatre BO and how well it does as a DVD (recognizing that there are some exceptions to this.)

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-17-2006, 10:07 AM:

Yah I agree, but it just seems like the studios are not caring more and more about theaters and film. All this digital BS and then schemes to sell DVDs in the lobby. You'd think they'd understand about killing the golden goose, but it seems just the opposite.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 02-17-2006, 10:26 AM:

My 2 cents... technology (Internet, ect.) will kill the video store, not the movie theatre. - Matt

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 02-17-2006, 11:30 AM:

Popular Science is more like a buying guide for Sharper Image addicts. This is just more posturing by the home entertainment industry. Plenty of folks still like to go out of their homes and have fun, and chances are there are theatres near them that give a shit about fresh corn & focus (at least they didn't mention scratches).

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-17-2006, 01:14 PM:

quote: Matt Fields
My 2 cents... technology (Internet, ect.) will kill the video store, not the movie theatre. - Matt

Exactly! If studios allowed day and date PPV (even at $1 or $2 more) with video release, video stores would be gone in 2 seconds. If people wanted to buy a DVD they'd go to Best Buy or Amazon but nobody would go through the hassle of renting at Blockbuster if they could get the same thing with the remote.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 02-17-2006, 01:38 PM:

Wouldn't that be something for the studios to go full cricle and go back to owning their exhibition arms again...Doesn't that sound familiar? Like, oh I don't know, back in the day when theaters were owned by the studios?
Direct-to-consumer using whatever proprietary technology sounds like it's just begging for a rehash of the law that broke theaters off from the distributors back in the day.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-17-2006, 03:55 PM:

..just more money that the film companies can make with both venues: Theatre (especially if the film flops on the big screen), and home video (where the studio can recoup the money lost on that film that flopped and still come out ahead).

Just can't help when Fox showed the numbers for "Napoleon Dynamite" grossing almost 60 mil in the boxoffice, and 104mil in DVD sales....almost double figures there..

..then we have to think of the overseas market with both. Now, there is a gold mine waiting to happen for sure,

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2006, 06:18 PM:

The movie theaters will only stay around as long as the window between theatrical release and home video release is preserved. Collapse those windows and 95% of commercial movie theaters will close.

Sure, there's a decent number of dedicated film fans who have to see the movie on a commercial movie screen. There's also a decent number of people who go to the movies to get out of the house. However, there is not a great enough number of people in those two camps to keep most theaters in business. If a family is given a choice between paying more to see a movie in a theater versus renting a DVD of the same movie, they're going to rent the DVD nearly 100% of the time.

The big movie distributors do indeed want to cut the "middle man" (read: exhibitors) out of the business equation on selling movies to the public. However, the distributors fail to realize just what real movie theaters add to the movie-going experience. Theaters are what legitimize a movie as a real movie.

Without theaters, all the major Hollywood studios are reduced to a standing not even on par with a cable TV channel. They would only be production outfits making made for TV movies.

quote: Matt Fields
My 2 cents... technology (Internet, ect.) will kill the video store, not the movie theatre.

I agree with this, but only if release windows are preserved.

10 years from now, Internet connections of 100Mb/sec or faster will be common. And they'll continue to get faster. By 2020, I would expect Gigabit-speed Internet to be pretty common. Not only will that kind of thing kill the video store, but it will also kill traditional forms of television broadcasting. Such speeds will allow video standards well above 1080p to be possible. The possibilities of such widespread high bandwidth connection is really kind of scary.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-17-2006, 06:56 PM:

Despite Iger's rantings (remember, they guy isn't used to the movie business - he's still thinking in terms of TV), I don't see the studios tryint to release day and date with theatres, ever..

The reason is simple - the current system makes them more money. Under the current system - the release a movie and you buy a ticket , netting them $6 or $7. Then, a few months later, they release a DVD and you go and buy it, netting them another $15 for a total of around $21. If they run day and date, they, at most, can hope only for the $15. The current system allows them to sell the same product twice - the day and date system will give them one sale and one sale only.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-17-2006, 08:10 PM:

The way I understand it Iger wants day-and-date releases on home video to be priced higher at their initial release. So the DVD might debut the same day as the theatrical release, with a list price of $39.95, instead of $29.95 under the current release system. The DVD price would then drop to "normal" later, probably in a few months or so. They'd come out ahead because they wouldn't have the extra expense of a separate marketing campaign for home video release like they do now. There would be a single big marketing blitz: "Now in theaters and on home video!".

That's the theory anyway.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2006, 09:18 PM:

I really believe Robert Iger and all those other day and date DVD release fans are pushing this shit only because entertainment stocks took a hit on flat DVD sales. Shrek 2 and The Incredibles had a bunch of unsold returns and all the short-term day traders had a little shit fit over it and made those stocks take a temporary dip in price. Even more surprisingly, DreamworksSKG wound up being folded into Paramount over this kind of thing.

Now, because the DVD format has matured and everyone isn't going crazy to buy every freaking disc that hits the shelves, the suits in parent corporations of movie studios are wanting to throw out an entire movie distribution model that has endured well for nearly 30 years. On top of that, they're happy to risk the fate of the theatrical side of the industry just over some shitty DVD sales.

Basically, it's all knuckle-headed logic on the part of these guys. They want to make rash moves that will be permanent across the movie industry in reaction to short term conditions. I think that's pretty stupid.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-17-2006, 10:21 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
They'd come out ahead because they wouldn't have the extra expense of a separate marketing campaign for home video release like they do now.

You know, a good theatrical release is the best marketing campaign they can get (and unlike most marketing campaigns, a good release will make them money even before the first DVD is sold). Especially considering that most consumers view a direct to dvd film as being one that wasn't good enough to play in theatres.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-17-2006, 11:03 PM:

Let us not forget they make money on the "Don't Call me Shirley" special editon re re re release. Or the "Ultimate Edition" or the Extended Editons, etc.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2006, 11:33 PM:

Frankly, I think all the double-dipping (releasing and then re-releasing movies again and again on DVD) is one of the things that has been hurting DVD sales.

Basically, it goes like this: a movie you want to own comes out on DVD, but doesn't quite have all the stuff you want on the disc. So you wait. You figure they'll release a better version in a few months or maybe a year or two.

I never bothered to buy Panic Room on DVD. I liked the movie quite a bit and think David Fincher's last few movies have been consistently good (starting with Seven). But the initial Superbit DVD was a bare bones disc. Although I am a DTS fan, I didn't buy the disc. I figured Sony would eventually release a big special edition. As far as I can tell, such a disc has never arrived and I don't even think one is in the works either.

I have copies of all of Quentin Tarantino's movies on DVD -except for Kill Bill volumes I and II. There was all sorts of word circulating how a big special edition that put both films into one box would be released. I'm still waiting for that one.

Waiting paid off for the Sin City Recut, Extended & Unrated version. The 2 disc set has both theatrical and unrated cuts, lots of extras and other stuff not included in the first DVD version released four months earlier.

I never bought Top Gun on DVD until an anamorphic version was finally released. I know a lot of folks who bought the non-anamorphic version.

I'm still waiting for an anamorphic version of Crimson Tide.

I did get double dip bitten on a few titles. I have two DVD versions of Die Hard and Titanic.

Some releases are "triple-dip". At least three different versions of Terminator 2: Judgment Day have been sold. I have a copy of the 2nd version. I saw copies of the third "Extreme Edition" version at Wal-Mart for $7.50.

I'm still waiting for a credible version of Bladerunner. The current 2-channel, non-anamorphic version is just not worthy. Why the hell won't Warner Bros. get something happening on this? Are they waiting until 2007, for a "25th Anniversary Special Edition?" By the time they get an anamorphic version with 5.1 audio made for DVD, they still jerk you around by putting the good extras on a new HD-DVD!

And that brings up another thing that is going to hurt DVD sales further. The format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is not good for HDTV at all. It isn't good for either of those next generation disc formats and it isn't good for the DVD platform either. Customers have more reasons than ever to hold onto their dollars and sit on the fence.

I'm a big movie fan and I have every intention to just wait at least another year or two before buying into any new format. Even though current HDTVs are finally hitting the 1920 X 1080 native resolution spec, few (if any) can bring in such an image from an external video source (like a Blu-Ray player) or a computer. That's a big deal breaker for me. HD movie disc players that require Internet connections and third party monitoring are a big turn off.

But Hollywood thinks it can solve these problems by doing away with the movie theaters. Okay.

Posted by Jamie Glossop (Member # 2180) on 02-18-2006, 04:06 AM:

Its stupid if they do that, Yeah we maybe going into the future, But instead of doing that why dont they do a system like

You see the film on the cinema first and then you have the option to buy it afterwards, that you can only buy the dvd if you have a cinema ticket to show as proof that you've seen the film.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2006, 12:40 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that brings up another thing that is going to hurt DVD sales further. The format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is not good for HDTV at all.

I am always amazed that the electronics/home entertainment industry didn't remember the Betamaz/VHS lesson. Of course the people making the decisions now probably weren't born then.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-18-2006, 12:46 PM:

At first it would seem using ticket stubs to allow a customer to buy a DVD currently in theatrical release would be a good idea. Or perhaps a rebate program could get put in place. Price DVDs of films currently in theatrical release at $40, but then give a $15 rebate for a ticket stub.

The problem is once the viewer has a DVD, what's going to stop him from loaning it out to other people? What's going to stop him from ripping the movie to his computer hard drive and uploading it to the Internet? The primary demand for pirated movies is for those currently in theatrical release. Once the movie has hit home video the demand for a pirated version of that movie rapidly dies.

Some of the infrastructure being built into Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats might allow more control over which players play which discs. One could require a mandatory Internet connection to activate the movie and assign its activation to the machine ID of the customer's specific movie player. That could work. But then what's going to stop the viewer from inviting his friends over to his house to watch the movie for nothing on his player? The movie industry would probably say, "well, let's bring back the pay per view model on movie discs!" We all know how well that will go over.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-18-2006, 12:55 PM:

Bobby,
There's a huge 3-Disc PANIC ROOM SE that's been out for a few years. No DTS, but it does have a new video transfer. It's a really nice set.

Also, they're releasing an extended cut of CRIMSON TIDE in May or something like that. I'd be scared of what has been "extended," but one would hope that it would have a new transfer.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-18-2006, 04:01 PM:

I didn't know about the 3-disc Panic Room SE. Never saw it on any store shelves around my town. Probably have to order it off Amazon.com.

My city really needs to get a Best Buy or something. The local Hastings and Sam Goody sell DVDs at full MSRP. And then the alternative is Wal-Mart -and that's not much of an alternative anymore if you want special edition DVDs or DVDs of movies that aren't completely homogenized mainstream. Even worse, Wal-Mart has really cut waaaay back on widescreen DVDs. Most of their stock these days is screwed up foolscreen discs.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-19-2006, 12:00 AM:

As long as the exhibitors refuse to play any movie that would be available on any other format while theatres are playing them things will be fine. As soon as they allow it the scene in Airplane will come to life....The shit will hit the fan.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 02-19-2006, 01:17 AM:

If a movie makes $60 million at the box office, then brings in another $60 million in DVD sales, what is the theory behind skipping the theatrical release? Do they assume that the by going straight to DVD they are going to make $120 million or more? Its rediculous. Word of mouth about a movies theatrical release spurs DVD sales. Without the word of mouth about Napolean Dynamite, it NEVER would have achieved the DVD sales it did. If studios go along with this rediculous idea, they will kill off the theatres and inevitably kill them selves by no longer being able to bring in enough revenue to make any kind of profit on a movie. To all studios considering this stupid move, I give you two fingers up [fu]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 02-19-2006, 08:28 PM:

Some people in the home video market have this tunnel vision that only lets them see their universe as the place where movies perform. No one can really believe this idea of having a universe of made for video movies. The idea is ridiculous. Only after a year of uninspired crap in the marketplace does the home video world even have enough evidence to bring the thought to press; and look at the gems they get to sit on now. Yes, I truly hope Wedding Crashers, Dukes of Hazzard & Stealth can benefit from extra footage, commentaries, blah blah blah because those certainly would be tough on their own to merit another (or initial) viewing.

Good theaters will make good films have great video releases, and they'd have even bigger releases with bigger windows! [Smile]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2006, 12:47 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
If a movie makes $60 million at the box office, then brings in another $60 million in DVD sales, what is the theory behind skipping the theatrical release? Do they assume that the by going straight to DVD they are going to make $120 million or more?

No, they think they will make EVEN MORE because they will "eliminate piracy." Yeah right.

They have also not thought of the fact that the one guy with one DVD can show it to 20 of his friends on one night and they can all collectively decide not to buy it. Great plan guys.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 02-20-2006, 04:00 PM:

That's right, because this industry loses BILLIONS to piracy every year [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 02-23-2006, 12:02 PM:

Movies are bcoming the newsfilm of yesteryear. "Its like Kleenex, its disposable."

JJ

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-23-2006, 07:15 PM:

Eh. All entertainment is that way, when you get right down to it. Think of all the thousands and thousands of movies that have been made in the last hundred years...how many are true enduring classics? A few hundred, maybe?

I remember an article in Rolling Stone years ago, somebody quoted Elton John as saying, "as long as they're willing to keep paying for it, I'm more than happy to shovel it out."

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-23-2006, 07:19 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
...Elton John as saying, "as long as they're willing to keep paying for it, I'm more than happy to shovel it out."

OMG! Spoken like a "true" artist!

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-23-2006, 07:35 PM:

I'm surprised at the amount of discounting going on with initial releases on DVD. The home video industry is shooting themselves in the foot by creating a consumer expectation that movies shouldn't cost any more than $14.00 on the day of release.

I know those prices are loss leaders by places like Best Buy intending to get you in the store so they can sell you batteries and cell phones for inflated prices, but the low prices of DVD's make it harder to release something that is more expensive, but may merit the higher price due to the complete package.

The low prices of DVD's also creates a completely reasonable value comparison in many people's minds about going to the theater. When Harry Potter 4 can be had for $16 a scant 110 days after its theatrical release, it's difficult for many people to see the value in dropping $17.50 (2 x $8.75) plus concessions for the theatrical experience, especially if they are in sub-par areas for theatrical quality.

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray duking it out for the future on the home front, DVD's getting cheaper and faster to release every day, Digital Cinema struggling desperately to get respect in theaters, and a society getting busier by the generation. We live in interesting times, that's for sure...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2006, 07:58 PM:

Yep, interesting times. I'm actually thinking about getting a mobile phone pretty soon (and cutting off the long distance on my land line). That's after years of angrily refusing to cave in to getting one. The apocalypse or rapture may be at hand.
[eyes]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-23-2006, 08:04 PM:

I wonder about DVD pricing too. Weird. Not that I'm personally complaining that DVD prices are too low or anything.

I've kept my landline (TiVo still needs it for one thing) but I dumped long distance. I have what may be the cheapest cell plan Cingular offers, $29.99 a month. A few weeks ago I had to make an emergency trip to Reno and over a few days I made a whole bunch of local and long distance calls on the cell, most of it not part of "weekend minutes" or whatever the discounted rate period is called. I expected to get dinged on the bill. I got the statement yesterday, and even with all those long-distance calls and the roaming, I had no extra charges at all. Me very happy.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-23-2006, 10:35 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
As long as the exhibitors refuse to play any movie that would be available on any other format while theatres are playing them things will be fine. As soon as they allow it the scene in Airplane will come to life....The shit will hit the fan.

It's more like Spaceballs...

"what is this"
"it's what's happening right now"
"how is that possible"
"VIDEO"

Ok I don't have the exact quote, but it reminds me of it. If IGER had his way, he would be releasing the movie to your home AS IT WAS BEING MADE!!!

Ciao

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-24-2006, 02:15 PM:

We've done this before in Washington DC; "9 to 5" All theatres pulled the print the day the VHS tape was delivered to stores...second week of run. Louis

Posted by Raymond Watson (Member # 3644) on 02-24-2006, 11:30 PM:

well I think its just a version of chicken little..."the sky is falling!!!"

sure the bean counters want to try it.
If you take out the "water fountain/coffee pot talk" about a movie,the sales will never get an upswing. commercials only start a movie, you never see them in quantity after it is out.
The movie companies depend on Joe Sixpack and the boys at the office to pump it up if it is good.

released to dvd same day would turn every other tavern in a city to a theatre for 2 nites a week..........unless baseball is on.

It will be like a Mike Tyson fight when 15 people go to someones house (the one with the best tv),and split the cost of the show. Thus turning every 100th home in the modern world into a private cinema in which the movie company only gets $29.95 minus markup for the first showing.

"You bring sodas ,I'll bring the chips thing" does not put money in movie makers pockets. The bean counters and suits all use psycologists and business models to make money,not lose it.

The first one to do it on a regular basis is committing suicide.
[sex]

They all know that,and will let you wonder about it ,just to keep you stirred up. Movie companies will never rule it out but on the other hand I am betting they never go direct to dvd on anything but a very small scale.

As far as digital projection , guys..... technology cannot be stopped,it is here to stay. DP will be the wave of the future, just as the talkies were in 1929. ALL decent quality movies will be shown in a large venue. The method of display may change but,per ticket sales in a large venue will not.
Its just part of the show,and a show ain't a show if it ain't
on the bigscreen!!!!!!!

theres my $0.02....plus tax........Ray

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-27-2006, 01:10 PM:

quote:
If IGER had his way, he would be releasing the movie to your home AS IT WAS BEING MADE!!!

And George Lucas would still be tweaking it as it was playing in your home! [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2006, 10:00 PM:

Hehe, I could just see it now.

"Go stand in your bathroom! You can't watch the movie yet! It isn't done! I have spotted an edit that must be fixed! You might as well take a crap, or a shower, or crap in the shower or whatever you have to do to kill an hour or two. We'll be a while."

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 02-28-2006, 06:14 PM:

quote:
As far as digital projection , guys..... technology cannot be stopped,it is here to stay. DP will be the wave of the future, just as the talkies were in 1929. ALL decent quality movies will be shown in a large venue. The method of display may change but,per ticket sales in a large venue will not.
Its just part of the show,and a show ain't a show if it ain't
on the bigscreen!!!!!!!

I'm not sold on the DP thing. I do think though that the future is already here and has been here for awhile, but no one really noticed it for awhile. I think that IMAX (or something similar) will be the future. Look at it this way, you're spending about $150,000 per screen to equipt a theatre with DP. What will it bring in? What difference will you see? I run an 18-plex and I can tell you, I had prints that were months old and left as good as the day it came in. My Wedding Crashers print was 5 months on screen with 5 shows a day each day, 7 days a week and it was still perfect. So the print scratches, wear and dirt don't fly with me. That being said, I don't think you will bring in one extra dollar over the fact that it's DP. I know I'm off the topic a bit, but I think what I'm saying relates to the whole day and date thing. If IMAX where to take off with more wide releases, you will GAIN audiences. It has proven even on a small scale 200 screens across the country that films like Harry Potter and Batman and the like will make money. It is something that you will NEVER get at home. I saw my first IMAX booth for the first time last month at Lincoln Square and I was blown away by the quality, not only on the screen but in the booth. The rerelease of Polar Express made an extra $1,000,000 dollars over the Thanksgiving weekend. What? Polar Express made about 35 Mill on inital release and you're talking about 200 screens. WB is going to rerelease it again this year too. So it has proven it's self. Even with a Day and Date release, IMAX will still pull. It's already running Day and DAte with standard theatres now.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2006, 07:15 PM:

I believe distributors are only looking at this in terms of print costs.

A 35mm print can cost between $1000 and $3000. How many 35mm prints will any given projector show per year? I'm guessing that's somewhere in the 20 print range. Even at the low end of the cost scale, you're talking at least $20,000 per year getting prints to many 1st run projectors. This is basically why some distributors are willing to at least put up some of the money for these video projector systems. Though costly, those DLP projectors will pay for themselves in terms of print cost savings in just a few years.

I seriously doubt the film distributors are even the slightest bit concerned about quality differences between 35mm projection done right versus video. I also doubt they're concerned at all about home theater offering near equal quality (at least in numerical terms) for video-based entertainment. My opinion is the distributors have a kind of tunnel vision on only seeing the savings they will gain on not having to order many thousands of film prints every year.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2006, 09:44 PM:

That's something I never really thought about --- we play roughly 65 prints here in a year on our one screen. So our theatre would "pay for" a digital projector (due to the virtual print fees) much quicker than a city theatre's machine that runs 10 or 20 prints in a year. On the other hand, it would cost the film companies more to supply us with digital "prints" since we change shows more often. Project that out to the whole country -- They'll have to pay for each and every projector they run a "print" on, where in the current situation the same $2000 film print might run in half a dozen or more theatres in its lifetime. There goes the economic incentive for playing your movie in every city, large and small, at the same time.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-28-2006, 11:57 PM:

Mike, are you first run, or second run? (Not necessarily "second run" per say, but do you get brand new prints every week or have they been used once before? If the latter, I wouldn't count more than the shipping costs to your theater as a studio expense.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2006, 11:58 PM:

True, second run and bargain theaters give movie prints a second life.

However, there are far fewer second run theaters in the country. A lot of them have closed recently, in part because of those ever-shrinking release windows to DVD. Here in Lawton, the Vaska theater (an old single screen theater) is the only bargain screen left in town.

Overall, I think there's a very lopsided balance of first run screens versus 2nd run. And while some prints can be shipped overseas for runs there, usually new prints have to be struck for theaters over there because of subtitling and other concerns (like having a different edit of the movie).

My point is, a great deal of prints made for first run are likely only going to play on one film projector and then get shredded, recycled or whatever happens to prints once they're done. This would be especially true for those big event releases with 5000 or more 35mm prints in the US/Canada market.

My concerns are still pretty strong about the D-Cinema situation. 4K and standards above that are really where commercial cinema needs to be for video projection for a number of reasons. Unfortunately for us film fans (or nostalgic purists as the digital fans would say in a dismissive tone) the business people can make a strong case for D-Cinema just in terms of money. Unfortunate for us again, our nation's business culture cannot see past a few up front dollars to see what's good for itself in the long term.

[ 03-01-2006, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-01-2006, 10:35 AM:

I've seen quite a few copies of Bubble at used media stores lately, too...

Avg. cost: $15; Avg. quantity: >3

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2006, 12:14 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Mike, are you first run, or second run? (Not necessarily "second run" per say, but do you get brand new prints every week or have they been used once before?

We are considered a first-run theatre by the distribs for booking purposes. We get 6 to 10 new prints a year. We'd get more if not for the dumb "2 week (or more) minimum" booking policy of the studios. That policy and overlapping release dates are the main reasons we don't play more films on the break.