This is topic Digital cinema and exclusivity 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=001809
Posted by Dan Chilton (Member # 2288) on 12-04-2006, 06:23 PM:
I've been wondering lately if the proliferation of digital auditoriums and low-cost distribution will spell the end of title exclusivity? I hope it does. There are a lot of titles that I'd love to have, but the multiplex down the road always gets exclusive rights to.
I hope in the future, every theater will get a fair shot at the title they want, and customers will have to decide which theater they want to see it at. I know that if we were given the chance to go head-to-head with the multiplexes in town, we could outdraw them on all the "big break indies" (ie LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, et al).
So what do you guys think? Will this ever be the case? Will distributors continue giving exclusive exhibition rights when the cost of a print drops to pennies on the dollar?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2006, 08:34 PM:
I don't think it will make any difference because, truthfully, I don't think 35mm print costs are as big a deal as Hollywood studios have led many to believe.
Take a lot of previous major releases in the last few years. The United States alone has had ridiculously high numbers of prints in circulation for certain releases. A normal "wide" release might feature 2,500 to 3,500 35mm prints. Some movies have had as many as 8,000 prints in circulation.
Some 24-plex sites might have the movie playing on several screens, rather than the 2 or 3 screens that seemed more normal for a big release. Even a lot of smaller theaters in smaller markets would have at least 2 or 3 prints of the movie.
The high number of prints is distributed so the movie can rack up something like a 2-day opening weekend gross over well over $100 million. You don't have lines of people wrapping around city blocks waiting hours on end to see a show. Anyone that wants to see a big release these days won't have to wait long at all.
For some reason the studios think the press it generates is important. The real important aspect is the movie plays itself out very quickly, and gets to 2nd run and DVD release faster. And that helps the production pay back all of its loans a lot faster and minimize the amount of interest they'll have to pay.
Apparently the profit levels behind this practice are higher than what all those prints cost. Many of those duplicate prints in a single multiplex will often disappear after only 1 or 2 weeks in release. I live in a fairly small city. We have 20 first run screens in town. It's has been somewhat common to have 5 prints divided up between 2 first run locations -and then see 3 of those prints disappear in less than 14 days.
Of course, film distributors would prefer to send something different to theaters than 35mm prints costing between $1000 and $3000 each. Digital "virtual" prints cost a LOT less. They can re-use the portable hard drives, possibly many times. Even if they had to buy brand new drives for each release, they would probably be paying well below $200 for each 300GB drive -especially considering the volumes being purchased.
But....to get to the specific issue about day and date competition between two theaters in close proximity to each other...
...that may not be happening even if every theater is showing the movie in video. An older theater with few screens is just going to be overlooked altogether in favor of a large multiplex nearby.
Allocation setups screw up any head to head competition between two locations of similar size within 2 or 3 miles of each other -even if one of the theaters is pretty old and obsolete. That old theater will still get half the major movie releases.
The best hope for small, unique theaters within close proximity to some google-plex is offering product the average multiplex won't carry.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-04-2006, 11:09 PM:
Studios get a higher percentage of film rental from competitive situations.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 12-04-2006, 11:13 PM:
You are correct, Bobby. Even if the feature is on a portable hard drive the pecking order remains intact.
Day-and-date terms determine whether the theatre can afford to play the feature and those terms will be the same whether the feature is on 8mm, hard drive or flip cards.
A 30-screen plex can cope with terms that tie up a screen for weeks but a single screen inde can not.
I must admit that it is MUCH easier to date major features these days because you can come off second or third prints from a multi. Due to over-building, there will never be another Titanic, with a six week waiting list on second prints.
Our biggest problem these days is that kids’ films have no shelf life; that business has gone to DVD. Remember when you could run Chitty Chitty Bang Bang two years later, to full houses?
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-07-2010, 06:00 AM:
It has been 1188 days since the last post.
Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 03-07-2010, 06:00 AM:
Could some one tell me what deductions from the usual 50% will the distributors usually give me if I spend $150K on a digital projector-- saving the distributor $2K for the print.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-07-2010, 08:19 AM:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)