This is topic Boxoffice Magazine rant 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=002014

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-25-2008, 06:12 AM:
 
Is anyone else annoyed by what Boxoffice magazine seems to be becoming?

Especially since they started adding the NATO content, it seems as if every issue now contains some combination of the following:

- "piracy is bad and must be stopped" article
- "digital cinema is good" article, usually written by someone with a financial interest in promoting the technology
- "screen advertising is good" article
- "alternative content and/or 3D are the wave of the future and all cinemas must install the needed equipment now" article (despite the fact that the alternative content business model has yet to be proven)
- "congratulations to some random person" article
- "the MPAA ratings system is good" article
- some token piece about a current film, illustrated with photos from the press kit
- some tiny reviews with tentative release dates
- a bunch of "congratulations to some random person" full-page ads

Meanwhile, even compared with five years ago, the release schedule has become less complete, the reviews have gotten shorter, the "independent exhibitor" section is gone, and there is little to nothing about film promotions. The tech articles are all about and not about anything that would actually help the average exhibitor today. I don't think that I've seen one article critical of recently, nor have there been any opposing viewpoints printed about the MPAA ratings system. When was the last time that they even had an article about sound?

Am I the only one who is tired of reading all this self-congratulatory crap, especially when it is printed to the exclusion of actual interesting material?

edit: Before anyone makes the "if you don't like it, don't subscribe" point, I should add that my subscription expires in December and I don't plan to renew. My issue is more that I don't feel that I am getting what I expected when I last renewed.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-25-2008, 06:37 AM:
 
Thats too bad. The first theatre I ever worked for back when I was a teenager used to get "Box Office" magazine delivered to the theatre. I always enjoyed it at the time as I was hungry for ANYTHING to do with theatres as I was desperate to learn anything I could. I always enjoyed reading "Box Office" and it gave me something to do when I had to use the little ushers room at the theatre
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-25-2008, 09:05 AM:
 
I do not subscribe to the magazine.

However, I do want to mention their website. If the magazine has become anything like the website, I see where your coming from.

I do not like their new website. It is uninformative and full of a bunch stuff I am not interested in. And just why can I not access their classified ads online anymore?

I still visit the website to see if they've changed it yet.

But it hasn't.


 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 03-25-2008, 10:15 AM:
 
I agree. I used to like the no nonsense format of the old Box Office. It also had unbiased articles. I wonder if they realize that their main subscriber base is likely 1-5 screen independent theatres, as a corporation is not likely sending out subscriptions to each of their locations. The magazine is almost completely irrelevant with the exception of the release chart.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-25-2008, 10:19 AM:
 
I agree with most of the sentiments here. When I first got into the biz, Boxoffice was a page turning must-read. Now it's a flip-through like Entertainment Weekly.

The reviews are the worst change...they used to actually analyze the films, now they read more like studio blurbs. However, I think this is mostly because they want (need?) to get the reviews out before the movies have descended to video la-la land. In the old Boxoffice days, a movie would be 6 or 8 weeks old when their review came out. These days that's too late.

There is one very interesting article in the latest issue though...we've all heard about how DVD sales dwarf the theatrical business. But, the DVD figures include TV shows, exercise videos, reissues of old movies, adult films, straight-to-video movies and (according to the article) even blank DVDs. Research indicates that recent theatrical films only account for about one third of DVD sales and rentals. So doing the math, that means DVDs actually do a little less $$$ than theatrical on new release movies. I was hoping that this article would be available on the website, but...not happening.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-25-2008, 10:22 AM:
 
I agree with Scott on the issue of Boxoffice magazine. We don't subscribe to it, but because we are members of N.A.T.O., we now get 3 copies a month. When N.A.T.O. did away with their own "In Focus" magazine, and rolled "Boxoffice" magazine into their own publication, alot of the format changed, and not particularly for the good. The new format of the release chart is almost completely useless. The old style chart was so much easier to follow, easier to read, and you could at a quick glance tell what was coming out when, by which studio, and what other studios had something else opening the same weekend. I now get my general release chart info elsewhere. I kind of lost my respect for Boxoffice when they did away with the annual August drive-in issue. Every year (in the past), the August issue was dedicated to Drive-In Theatres, and now they don't mention a word about us. I could care less about "Cineasia" or what's happening in the world of exhibition in Europe. That's just me though.

It's about time for an "Independent Exhibitors" magazine.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-25-2008, 10:31 AM:
 
Is the Independent Film Journal still published?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-25-2008, 11:24 AM:
 
New owners for Boxoffice; new visions. I pulled my ad because they are no longer relevant to my customers.

Oh, yes, follow the money! The ads are about so the articles and editorial viewpoint will follow. Louis
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-25-2008, 11:56 AM:
 
The problems described about Box Office magazine are common with many industry-specific trade publications.

It all boils down to this: these kinds of publications do more to pander to their advertisers than inform their readership. This problem often results in some pretty destructive bias -especially if the publication is blatantly pushing a terrible product to its readers at the behest of an advertiser.

I get several different trade publications relating to the sign and outdoor advertising (billboard) industries. Bias pops up on occasion in any of these publications and has become worse over the years due to all of them being sent to companies like mine for free. Advertisers want those magazines sent out for free so their ads get seen by more industry people. When the paid subscription model goes out the window, so does a lot of editorial responsibility.

What's even more funny is just how out in the open this bias is revealed in various editorials or even in seminars and other meetings where editors of these magazines speak in public.

A decade ago I wound up getting into a short argument with Darek Johnson, Editor and Chief of Sign of the Times during a seminar about large format digital graphics at an International Sign Association world convention in Las Vegas. Various people in attendance were asking questions about what to use on the "front end" for designing the ads. I brought up Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Darek Johnson didn't like that. He was pushing the notion of buying overpriced sign industry-specific software that didn't do remotely as good as job as Photoshop. He tersely asked me, "how long has Adobe been making sign industry software?" I laughed and said his question was completely irrelevant. Photoshop applies to many different graphics oriented industries. But here's the thing: to the best of my knowledge, Adobe has never bought any advertising at all in Signs of the Times while others selling much more expensive yet far less useful software have. To this day Johnson has a bias against Adobe and even claims lesser products like Corel Photo Paint are better in his "Technology Update" articles. I understand why he has to spout out spin and bias. Readers just have to filter what they read in publications of all types and do so at an ever increasing level.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 03-25-2008, 12:05 PM:
 
Bobby,
I agree with you on Adobe Photoshop. I use Elements 4. I use it primarily to color my comics as it's more versatile than other art programs and definitely works best with my Bamboo drawing pad.
Corel is the lesser of the 2, in my opinion.
I can see the advantage in using Photoshop in sign design.

On this topic, since I chimed in...
I found whatever data I was getting from Boxoffice I was able to find for free on the web, especially here on this site. My subscription lapsed 3 years ago.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-25-2008, 12:27 PM:
 
Thanks for the comments. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that Boxoffice is becoming useless, if it hasn't already done so.

I think that my dissatisfaction started around the time when the NATO material started to appear. I'm not a theatre owner and don't really care about what NATO has to say about anything.

I would be much more interested in reading quality film reviews and articles, independent exhibitor success (and failure) stories, promotional ideas, and useful tech articles written by people who do not have have financial incentives to promote their own stuff.

I'm also pretty tired of the "congratulations to" articles. Some of these people actually have made valuable contributions to the industry and to society in general, but I'd rather read about those contributions in a more meaningful context. Agreed with Barry that I miss the drive-in issue, which always had pictures and articles about various drive-ins. Even the yearly "buyer's guide" list of suppliers is smaller than it has been in the past.

I have no problem with advocacy, but there needs to be more balance. I see lots of DLP articles, but nothing about 70mm and very little about Imax. I see lots of pro-MPAA-ratings-system articles, but nothing that opposes it. Same for screen advertising--I don't think that there has been one negative article about it in the last couple of years. I see lots of puff pieces about how "the future of the industry looks bright," but nothing about the reality that cinema needs to be a better competitor in an environment where other entertainment options continue to expand.
 

---

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 03-25-2008, 01:03 PM:
 
Scott it sounds like Box Office is going the same direction as "The Big Reel"!!.....down the tubes.
 

---

Posted by Jerry D. Cox (Member # 701) on 03-25-2008, 03:03 PM:
 
When I started working at my home town theatre down in Alabama
back in 1952 there was 4 Differn boxoffice Mag. One for each part of the U.S. PLUS one National one,Back then you could see what was happen in your part of the country,And it was more
personal as for now it is not worth looking at.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-25-2008, 03:21 PM:
 

quote: Barry Floyd

---

The old style chart was so much easier to follow, easier to read, and you could at a quick glance tell what was coming out when, by which studio, and what other studios had something else opening the same weekend. I now get my general release chart info elsewhere.

---

Do you happen to have an old issue that shows the "old" release schedule?

I might be able to create something similar and make it available if anyone is interested.
 

---

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 03-25-2008, 07:49 PM:
 
Thank you-I thought I was the only one who thought the magazine was now useless! I won't be renewing either. I've subscribed for years, and all you have to do is look at back issues of "Boxoffice", "Motion Picture Herald", etc. to see how great it used to be...
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 03-25-2008, 08:43 PM:
 
When I was 14 I subscribed to Boxoffice and Motion Picture Exhibitor. Boxoffice was $3.00 per year and MPE was $2.00.
They were both WEEKLIES. I don't know what Boxoffice costs now as I haven't subscribed in years.
Bob
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-25-2008, 09:21 PM:
 
Geez, let's not forget The Modern Theatre , Film Journal, Greater Amusements, and of course, International Projectionist. I have back issues of most of these reaching back to the mid sixties, including buyer's guides (Introducing the new Strong Jet-Arc!! Pays for itself in satisfied patrons!!) .

I still get Boxoffice after 35 years. Your right, it's not the same, but at least it's survived. As recently as a couple of years ago, I recall getting issues that were only 30 or so pages tops, more like pamphlets than magazines. I thought for sure that they were at death's door.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-26-2008, 08:24 AM:
 
Sometimes I get the feeling that this whole industry is just dying a slow and painful death around me.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-26-2008, 08:42 AM:
 
Well, it is. At least the mainstream/multiplex end of it. I fully expect that the AMC/Regal/Cinemark screen count will be down by 20-40% in a decade. Ticket prices keep going up, theatres have become generic, and the number of alternative options for both in-home and out-of-home entertainment keeps increasing.

This is why I'm tired of reading articles in Boxoffice about how healthy the industry is. The last thing that the exhibition industry needs right now is to be told that it is doing a good job and should continue the status quo.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-26-2008, 09:18 AM:
 
Back when Boxoffice Magazine was the Pulse Of The Motion Picture Industry, the magazine was the main source of motion picture industry news. Back then there were many hundreds of theatre owners, and thousands of theatre managers who relied on Boxoffice. The magazine provided a venue where they could share ideas and keep track of new technology. It was filled with stories about ideas and promotions that managers could use to boost business. Now, 75% or more of the theatres are owned by 3 large chains. Managers have little say on how their theatres are run, they just implement company policies. About the only decision a manager has in regards to promotion is where to place the standee in the lobby. Managers have little or no say in what equipment is purchased for projection or concession.

Nowdays, the information that Boxoffice supplied is available quicker and easier online. The magazine has become totally irrelevant, the industry it serves no longer needs it.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-26-2008, 09:43 AM:
 
Ditto on all the bad feelings towards Boxoffice. Up until its redesign a couple of years ago it was a must have for me. The release charts for the indie movies and the annual buyers guide were essential material for any small theatre. Now it is just ugly clutter.

First Variety went from being a Showbusiness magazine to a business magazine and now Boxoffice has turned into a collection of PR inserts. I want real data and information.

At least I have my collection of Boxoffices from 1944-46 to keep me amused;>
 

---

Posted by Doug Willming (Member # 728) on 03-26-2008, 12:03 PM:
 
I can tell you as a former occasional advertiser in BoxOffice some years back, their content (like many other trade magazines) is dictated by their largest advertisers. If the digital cinema guys are the ones buying the full-page color ads, you can bet there will be plenty of "puff" pieces about the virtues of going digital with the articles "happening" to feature quotes and commentary from those advertisers. I also used to advertise in "Post" and "Millemeter" magazines; the only time my company ever got called to provide a quote for an article was when we had an ad running.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-26-2008, 01:17 PM:
 

quote: Doug Willming

---

If the digital cinema guys are the ones buying the full-page color ads, you can bet there will be plenty of "puff" pieces about the virtues of going digital

---

quote: Sean McKinnon

---

Sometimes I get the feeling that this whole industry is just dying a slow and painful death around me

---

While I know you were refering to the theatre industry, that also brings up the subject of another industry's struggles. Part of Box Office Magazine's decline could be reflective of the magazine industry. Over the past decade, I've noticed many periodicals (non industry related) have declined in quality or disapeared all together. As many people have mentioned already, the internet provides information for free and in a more timely fashion, thus cutting in to the demand for such magazines. Perhaps, Box Office's decline is partially tied in to an attempt at surviving within a drastically changing market. Unfortunately, such an effort would also be a double edged sword; i.e. in their effort to find a means of financial survival, they alienate their remaining readers.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-26-2008, 07:16 PM:
 
Wow, Boxoffice is still around! I wrote it off as dead years ago.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-28-2008, 11:24 PM:
 
I haven't liked BOXOFFICE since Shlyen sold it to whoever, and it became a small-format monthly. It lost its soul when that happened.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-29-2008, 01:21 AM:
 
Box Office could still survive for many years longer if it would do what newspapers are refusing to do in order to survive: serve their specific market with exclusive articles and other content one cannot read from elsewhere.

Normally when any newspaper, magazine or other periodical gets into trouble the idiots in charge simply move to cut costs by slashing their staff of talent.

"Let's fire some writers and other creative people. Let's parrot even more worthless stories from the AP or Reuters or any other wire news service. Let's give the readers even more of the same shit they can find out on their own very quickly with Google for free."

All publications depend on providing their market, their user base, their customer base, with exclusive content one cannot read anywhere else. This is why local newspapers and regional magazines are failing. This is also why Box Office is in trouble. What the hell are they reporting that is exclusive at all?

The Internet really is merely only a scapegoat for a lot of do-nothing editors who are trying to sell publications on the cheap for the cover price of the past. They are pulling a con job. Those guys deserve to lose their damned jobs. How about this? Hire an editorial department worth a damn and track down the stories worth reporting instead of giving the same old worthless shit?

Oh well, at least with a lot of trade magazines similar to Box Office you can get the issues free. But it's also that old saying: you get what you pay for. Free equals editorial spin in favor of the advertisers and articles featuring stuff everyone already knew about weeks in advance.

[ 03-29-2008, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-29-2008, 08:24 AM:
 
What Bobby said.

I would pay money for a magazine that included features such as the following:

- release chart similar to the older-style Boxoffice chart, with dates, stars, directors, distributor phone numbers, picture and sound formats, etc.

- video release chart

- boxoffice grosses for films in current release

- quality film reviews

- articles about successful and unsuccessful attempts at film promotion

- articles about independent exhibitors and their successes/failures

- articles about theatres with unusual booking policies (silents, classics, etc.)

- tech articles that are actually useful to more than 10% of the readership--i.e. "how to improve your presentation for under $100," "recommended projection and sound upgrades," and pretty much anything along the lines of the "tips" section of this site

- article about a specific theatre's DLP installation--what was involved, what went right, what went wrong, what to watch out for, actual costs involved (yes, with numbers), assessement of benefits (or lack thereof) due to conversion, etc.

- product reviews (yes, this will upset advertisers, but it would actually be useful to know what popcorn machines work best, etc.)

- salary surveys for managers, operators, and floor staff for various chains and independents

- some sort of discussion of the nontheatrical market--i.e. what types of programming have been tried at colleges, on cruise ships, in prisons, etc., and which ones are successful

- some sort of discussion about theatres that present live entertainment in addition to films and how the two types of programming can be combined effectively

- some sort of historical article in each issue, featuring a notable theatre (either still existing or not), film release, or personality in the exhibition industry
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-29-2008, 07:41 PM:
 
Guys, Box Office rag has been biased for decades. Where have you all been? The best example is the sound end of things with the same section having been written by the same person for many years... that person is so convinced that his own speakers are the only good ones out there. HA! We all know better .

There has always been some kiss someone's ass ads for the Showorst Edition for as long as I can remember... We really should blame Showorst for this... not Box Office... Everyone/Company placing an ad is merely kissing that persons ass for safety's sake down the road or in the future! Some of you may have to do this some day yourself depending on what level of employment you attain in the future .

Of course all the anti-piracy stuff is total bull-shit... lunacy really! In fact many of the internet news group based movie downloads are preview tapes that came right from the editing room or lab. People will just continue to pirate movies right off the screen as they have been doing for the last couple of decades.
3-D... Well, certain locations can benefit financially big time from Digital 3-D... but not all. It entirely depends on the local competition and circumstances. Also, some theater owners DO want to offer their partons the latest movie going techology. But don't believe a word of the "You Have To Install It" Box Office attitude! Its totally rediclous!

Those that think digital is not part of their Cinema Supply and Service buisness are fools. Digital HAS ITS PLACE in most theaters and many other types of venues. Film AND Digital will be living side by side for a very long time so get used to it, learn all you can about digital or retire.... you REALLY are not doing your customers any favor at all... they'd probably rather deal with you than anyone else for either format.

BTW: We don't subscribe to BO magazine either... its usefulness died long before I entered this biz... over 32 years ago. However, the Showorst Rag certainly makes great toilet paper if you have an out house at your summer cabin!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 03-29-2008, 09:23 PM:
 
I agree that Box Office is useless.
Even the release chart is useless, esp since IME's new web site came on line.

I have been getting ScreenTrade magazine lately.
I don't remember signing up for it, but it is pretty good.
Still a little bias toward digital issues, but much more techy like Box Office used to be back when I started in the biz.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-29-2008, 09:42 PM:
 
So has anyone thought to e-mail a link to this thread to Box Orifice magazine? They should at least be told that important people in the industry do not approve of their rag. Actually, I'm not sure why anyone would read it in the first place. We got both that and Film Journal at the theater back in the day and they were pretty boring magazines from what I recall. Their writers were far too busy trying to be boring rather than anything else. It was like each article had a required 26,000 word minimum.

Bottom line: People who write for these magazines are boring people and should be avoided at all costs unless you want a non-addictive sleep aid.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-31-2008, 11:09 AM:
 

quote:

---

I would pay money for a magazine that included features such as the following:

---

I don't think you will ever see this if it doesn't already exist.

The content you speak of would be truly useful, interesting, and of value to prospective readers. But print publications are having an incredible difficulty staying afloat, and I seem to remember (back when they weren't having such troubles) that print publications like magazines and newspapers take 5-7 years to turn a profit.

The business climate these days won't support such a long return on investment, especially the type of investment required to provide all of the information you listed at the quality level that would be expected from its readership.

Even if you remove the challenges involved with printing by doing it online, hiring and retaining the qualified staff to deliver the content would still be a very tough thing to do these days. Besides, people see a publication that's online and they immediately want it to be free. Advertisers still see the most value in print advertising, and will not pay more than very small sums to appear in an online publication.

So where does that leave the potential audience? Finding individual resources like the Film-Tech forums and other sites that provide their own pieces of the puzzle. It forces everyone to wade through the clutter out there, and it fragments the potential audience that a single resource could attract.
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-03-2008, 08:53 AM:
 
Problem with BoxOffice is the same as Hollywood Reporter-- they're not getting to the news fast enough. Daily Variety has the scoop because they have reporters working every day, obviously, but when you get the latest issue of BoxOffice, it's usually old news if you're keeping your eye on things.

IMHO, the magazine jumped the shark when they stopped using that orange ink.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-07-2008, 07:47 AM:
 
I bailed out on BO about 10 years ago. International Film Journal still is on subscription. It to has suffered, but not to the extent of BO, from pandering to digital and then there are the "congratulation" issues....someone hand me the barf bag.
 

---

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 04-16-2008, 10:14 AM:
 
Joe: I have emailed the editor of BoxOffice regarding this thread as BO has been a big disappointment to me as well. To go along with Barry's line of thought, I had submitted an article I wrote regarding a facet of the drive-in industry and, given that June 6th will be the 75th anniversary of the first drive-in theatre, I thought sure they would be interested. Their editor even wrote to say he would take a look at it and get back with me. That was back on December 12th...and my periodic inquiries have gone unanswered. It ain't your daddy's BoxOffice anymore...heck, it ain't even your BoxOffice anymore. Like others say, it seems betroven to the digital corporate stratosphere where film and independent exhibition is something to be ignored. Too bad...I even started subscribing a few years before I had my first theatre, just to get to know the industry. It was still a resource back then...eh, Barry?
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-19-2008, 10:36 AM:
 
When I was a kid, my boss used to bring his used Boxoffice mags to the drive-in. I looked forward to reading them. They were a connection to the outside world that we in the rural areas didn't see much.

Now, they might as well just send their copies to the manufacturers. That self-backslapping doesn't do much to advance my business.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-19-2008, 11:09 AM:
 
While it's not perfect and there is a lot of backslapping (all trade pubs have this), I think Boxoffice is far superior to what it used to be before the relatively recent sale. It does vary from issue to issue, but the new design is light years ahead of the old one (which was an embarrassment) and it's better written. In fact, under the old management, I was sure that Boxoffice was probably going to fold.

Before the new owners took over, the magazine was designed and written as if it was still 1954. It still gave owners stupid marketing slogans to market the movie by as if individual theater owners still had any say in the matter.

While Forums like this provide better and more precise info on projection booth and specific management issues, I still enjoy reading Boxoffice. Now there is a certain guy who doesn't seem to write for Boxoffice anymore whose name I apparently can't mention here because of some past controversies and I do miss his articles (even if I didn't always agree with him), but I guess I can't talk about it.

I would like to see more historical articles, but most trade magazines these days ignore their heritage because they don't consider that to be part of the 'business". I also think they should have fewer articles about specific movies because by the time they publish them, the movie is already out.

When Reed bought Variety from the Silverman family, they killed "Variety-speak" ("Wall Street Lays an Egg", "Hicks Nix Stix Pix", etc.) because they wanted to make it more of an international paper and it didn't translate well, but that's what made Variety fun to read. They also redesigned it, but instead of improving it, they made it look like the average weekly computer magazine. And they killed the domestic boxoffice summaries because various services now provide that info overnight, but I always liked it because it included a list of the major theaters in each city, the number of seats and the "nut".

And in Daily Variety, they killed the crossword puzzle, which I thought was useful because people would save them and therefore browse each issue longer. But the industry has changed and these trade journals are going to change with it. (And now Reed has put Variety and its other business trades up for sale, so it will be interesting to see what the next owner does with them.)

So...while it has its faults and there's always room for improvement and they're always going to have issues where some association head or theatre chain owner is being celebrated and there's tons of bad photos and stupid congratulatory ads, I still enjoy Boxoffice.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-14-2008, 08:28 AM:
 
I stopped paying attention to Box Office magazine 5-6 years ago. Usually their information is so far out of date that it's not worth while.

I can appreciate missing what it used to be, but there are so many on-line resources that cover most of that info in a more timely fashion. It's almost like reading an article about the Super Bowl in Sports Illustrated a week after the game was played.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-06-2008, 10:42 AM:
 
Bump.

This month's issue (August) has to be the worst yet.

Let's peruse the articles:

- guy who runs a boxoffice numbers service (?) talks about how great the summer, 2008 boxoffice numbers are
- guy who runs a web site about argues that the 1.3k (non-)standard should be accepted since almost-as-good-as-35mm-film 2k is "too expensive"
- guy who works for AccessIT's alternative-content division talks about how theatre owners should promote his alternative content themselves, since it obviously isn't getting enough promotion from AccessIT
- NATO president justifies his existance by talking about why theatre owners should join NATO
- NATO director of government affairs justifies his existance by talking about why NATO should concern itself with government affairs
- someone from the National Association of Concessionaires justifies her existance by talking about why people should attend the NAC convention
- Cinema Advertising Council members justify their existance by talking about the benefits of cinema advertising
- "exclusive concession report" talks about popcorn prices (actually somewhat interesting and relevant) and about one chain's adoption of a new type of popcorn bag which just happens to be made by one of the magazine's advertisers
- movie reviews are pretty much as they have been for the last year or so--lame, lame, lame

There are actually a couple of interesting and relevant articles, but they are completely drowned out by the aforementioned crap. Is there really so little interesting and relevant material in this industry that the publishers of Boxoffice must resort to filling its pages with worthless self-serving tripe such as this?

It would be an improvement if they would just stop accepting "congratulations to..." ads and at least pretend to offer balanced perspectives on controversial issues such as cinema advertising and the ratings system.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-11-2008, 07:50 PM:
 
Scott: "Amen!" Louis (former advertiser in B. office)
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-12-2008, 03:49 AM:
 
I remember the red covered,weekly BO magazines that were tons more informative about the industry that what the current magazine contains now.

There for a while, you know when things got a little thin is when you see BO magazine that was stapled. The old magazines were like novels to really gander through - so thick and full of infomation.

Luckilly, I still read this magazine for free since our company subscribes to this magazine and sends issues to our locations - I wouldn't pay for a magazine that I can read once
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2008, 10:54 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

It would be an improvement if they would just stop accepting "congratulations to..." ads and at least pretend to offer balanced perspectives on controversial issues such as cinema advertising and the ratings system.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

But how much could be written about those things that hasn't already been written?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

They need to write about digital cinema because that's where the industry is going, like it or not, and the congrats ads have been there as long as I've been in the biz...I dare say without those ads the mag wouldn't exist.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

With the exact same info being available instantly on the web, I'm surprised it still exists anyway.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

The digital cinema stuff is fine and well and good when it is _useful_ to the average theatre owner and/or manager and/or employees. The self-promotional crap written by the studios or Fithian or AccessIT or others with a financial interest in the technology's adoption and success is not.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

what are the areas that can cause a lost show(s) with digital?

---

quote: Robert Minichino

---

spade terminals won't cut it because the massive impedance mismatch

---

How so? Are the RJ-45 plugs not just making a pin-to-pin connection?

It doesn't have to be spade lugs, there are other more-reliable connectors, so there has to be a better solution.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-17-2008, 09:56 AM:
 
With cat. 5, the specification requires that the twist of the wires be maintained to within 1/2" of the termination point. This can't happen with spade lugs (in most cases), due to the size of the screws and spades.

A 110-block type of termination (with a strain relief where the cable exits the unit) would probably have been a better choice, however.
 

---

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 08-17-2008, 12:16 PM:
 
RJ45 connectors are very reliable, with self-wiping contacts and very heavy gold plating on both jack and plug. RJ48X (same 8P8C connector as Ethernet) is used for DS1 electrical connections at the demarc by a telco that is guaranteeing 5-nines availability; if they were unreliable they'd spend the money on a better connector. They're not particularly durable, though. In contrast, a D-sub connector is physically more durable but electrically inferior.

A 110 block allows you to maintain twists very close to the point of termination and ones rated at higher speeds also have impedance controlled construction.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-17-2008, 12:48 PM:
 
See there? We don't need BOXOFFICE to tell us the problems and pitfalls of digital...we have this thread!
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-17-2008, 04:20 PM:
 
Please don't call them RJ45s.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-17-2008, 07:16 PM:
 
Sorry about that, Rick.

quote: Robert Minichino

---

Neutrik makes a ruggedized 8P8C (commonly known as RJ45) connector system called EtherCon.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

Please don't call them RJ45s.

---

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

As a note, the AccessIT/Christie 'package' doesn't have this weak point Tim mentions. There are others I'm sure, but no exposed cabling at least.

---

quote: Tristan Lane

---

one of the DVI connections should have been placed on the outside of the projector so that alternative content sources could be connected without having to contort your body inside the pedestal to access the connections.

---

quote: Tristan Lane

---

There's still the exposed connections at the network switch that is installed in the rack.

---

quote: Tristan Lane was the last to post

---

Why??

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

The digital cinema stuff is fine and well and good when it is _useful_ to the average theatre owner and/or manager and/or employees. The self-promotional crap written by the studios or Fithian or AccessIT or others with a financial interest in the technology's adoption and success is not.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I've already posted my thoughts on this topic earlier, but I think that the main issue is that Boxoffice needs to decide if it wants to be a magazine for its advertisers or one for its readers.

---

quote: Peter Cane

---

we will post the entire archive of the magazine, going back to 1924, on Boxoffice.com

---

Now, I'll subscribe to that!

It'll also take the wind outta the sails of that guy who keeps trying to get $10 an issue from them on Ebay!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-08-2008, 08:45 PM:
 

quote:

---

It'll also take the wind outta the sails of that guy who keeps trying to get $10 an issue from them on Ebay!

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

When was the last time you priced one of those old Maroon Theater Catalogs?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

As someone who has written for magazines in the past (real articles, not letters to the editor

---

Yes, but were they real magazines?
 

---

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 09-13-2008, 11:16 AM:
 
Sure they were. But no one bought them for the articles.
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 09-13-2008, 11:41 AM:
 
Thank you for the responses.

First, an update on the archives. We have about 200 leather-bound volumes (about 1,500 pp each) of the magazine going back to 1924. The last of the leather volumes was scanned yesterday. We are in the process of separating these files into individual issues, and we will be posting about 3,000 weekly and about 300 monthly issues of Boxoffice by the end of the year.

Now, back to the future. There is no question that Boxoffice has a pro-digital editorial tone. That's because we're pro-digital. Our view is that digitization is the best thing to happen to exhibition in a long time. I'm not here to persuade anyone, so I'll leave it at that.

But I also agree that we can do a better job on covering many of the topics raised in this forum. Adam Fraser's post contains some great example of how to make Boxoffice a better business tool for independent exhibitors. We will start following up on that today with the goal of having regular coverage of these topics in the magazine starting with the January 2009 issue. Please keep your comments coming to help us make the coverage as relevant and helpful as possible.

In the meantime, here is a sneak peek at the archive. We have uploaded some test copies to www.issuu.com. You can start here: http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_010838

Thanks again for your thoughts,
Peter
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-13-2008, 08:59 PM:
 
Peter,

Why should your magazine have a "pro-anything" tone? I guess pro-cinema, in all its many forms is about all I would expect from "Boxoffice." If the magazine is to have value, it should remain technology neutral (not just projection but concession, POS...you name it)...otherwise, you are just a shill for someone's point of view.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 09-14-2008, 07:23 AM:
 
I think it's OK to be 'pro' anything, but readers should know this. So, my feeling is the magazine should have a 'mission statement' at the first page.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-14-2008, 10:41 AM:
 
John,

I think it is okay for people to be pro anything. However a publication such as "Boxoffice" that does not, in and of itself, have any reason to presume a bias sure just stick to the facts and be position/technology neutral. I don't think they need to take on the "even reporting" that keeps tally of pro-this versus pro-that but just report the facts.

What is the point of a Pro-position magazine for this industry? To make one feel good about a purchase they made? It makes it less of an information resource and more of a cheerleader for certain positions. Kinda like Fox-News. There is no need to tune in, you know what they are going to say already. Similarly for Boxoffice, why bother reading, subscribing, advertising? Each issue looks like the last...which is what started this thread.

I find it quite interesting that people are MORE interested in Boxoffice's past than its present.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-15-2008, 09:03 PM:
 
An acquaintance who worked in the editorial offices of a major mag. about 25 years ago commented once that there is a LOT of pressure from advertizers for the magazine to take their (the advertizers) point of view in articles and editorials. A quick perusal of Boxoffice and Film Journal will reveal the reason both mags heavily promote digital in their articles. Frequently both magazines have thinly disguised manufacturers promotions written by manufacturers reps pushing products in what they would have us believe are articles or informative stories. To both rags.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 09-15-2008, 09:06 PM:
 
Reading an average of of 20 + trade journals a month in allied fields....you learn to speed read and pick the truth needle in the haystack
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-15-2008, 09:20 PM:
 
Let's analyze the "pro-digital" situation. How many cinema equipment manufacturers and similar companies are "anti-digital"? Not too many, I'd bet. Box Orifice magazine is pro-digital so that can attract advertisers. They certainly don't want to alienate them. This magazine is not an objective one. They pander to the advertisers, trust me. They have to or otherwise they'd be living on the streets (their readerbase isn't high enough to support them if they had fewer ads). Yes, you'll still see film advertisements in there (likely, I haven't seen an issue for years), but guess which type of technology is more likely to be advertised... especially into the foreseeable future. Bill is correct, Box Office bases their opinions on that of the advertisers, not independent journalistic integrity.

Also, what is up with all of those "congratulations" ads? NOBODY CARES! I am almost tempted to take out my own congratulations ad to make fun of the others.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-16-2008, 10:06 AM:
 
I don't think that there is any such thing as an unbiased publication. Newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and web sites all take some sort of position on things. Some are better than others at tempering their "enthusiasm" for a position, but I can't think of any publication off-hand that does not express opinions about certain topics.

The problem comes in when those publications become myopic and fail to recognize the failings of whatever it is that they are advocating and also fail to recognize the strengths of what may lie on the "other side" from what they advocate. Doing so damages the credibility of the publication in the eyes of anyone capable of critical thought.

I haven't read Box Office Magazine in quite a while, so I can't say if they have fallen into that trap, but if they have, that's a problem that needs to be corrected editorially ASAP if they are to build their subscriber base.

IMHO, if the editors of Box Office Magazine want to attract subscribers, they should open up a dialog with their readers and potential readers. Doing so may be too open for many old-school publishers to be comfortable with, but there is a tremendous resource of knowledge and experience within the ranks of this site's membership alone, and there is great value in tapping that resource.

In defense of Box Office Magazine, though, for all the exposition here about what they are doing wrong, where are the examples of it being done right? Yes, many have mentioned the days of Box Office Magazine gone by, but with all the aforementioned knowledge and experience, where are the white papers and well-written informational articles from said resource?
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 09-16-2008, 03:19 PM:
 
To quote one of Adam Fraser's points in a pervious post:

"Real dollar costs/benefits of the conversion to digital projection using a theatre that has added a digital projector. Maybe give an accountant all the numbers of the real cost of conversion versus the benefits in decreased shipping costs, less time building up prints, etc. and see how long it would take to make up the $100,000 price tag. I for one don't feel like paying $1500/month on something that might bring in a couple extra patrons a week."

Great suggestion, but you have to wonder how objective they would be, considering Paul Cane's admitted response that " Boxoffice has a pro-digital editorial tone", coupled with the fact that the magazine has to serve its advertisers. Are we really going to get the straight scoop on the real cost of digital conversion for independents?

Admittedly, I'm not a theater owner, but I would hate to see my guys (owners) taken to the cleaners.

Thanks, but no thanks.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-17-2008, 12:01 AM:
 
Well, Digital Cinema is something that already IS taking place and it's not going to be an option -- so I don't see how anyone reporting "real" numbers (or not) of the costs is relevant.

It's in the vein of red-reader conversions. It wasn't a choice; you installed red-readers or you played silent movies. And, like red-readers, this change will happen because Hollywood wants it to happen.

I can't understand why people are still trying to make pro/con arguments. Game over.
 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 09-17-2008, 12:45 AM:
 
Tim,

I know it is happening, but what I would like to see is a cost- benefit to work out projections of business versus costs for future operations. This allows us to plan for the future with how much we should "put away" and at what times. We will be able to afford the conversion, as will many others, but many will not and they may want to start thinking about alternative uses for their building or when to get out of the business.

There are many little theatres out there that only get 10,000-20,000 or less patrons a year, and when the conversion happens it will most likely be the end of their business. Those theatre owners on the borderline of being profitable as it is now need to be able to look at the true numbers of the conversion, and plan accordingly.

I see the analogy to red readers, but this is a much bigger hit on the checkbook. $2000 wasn't a big deal for the conversion to red readers (if a business cannot afford $2000, you might want to think about a different use for the building). Writing a $100,000 check takes much more planning and contemplating for an independent theatre owner.

[ 09-17-2008, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Adam Fraser ]
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 09-17-2008, 01:35 PM:
 
Right on, Adam. You couldn't have said it better. Nobody is arguing the inevitability of D Cinema. It's going to happen eventually. The real question for independents is how to do it without breaking the bank.

Are owners going to believe everyting they are told by salespeople? Not likely. What they want is straight answers about cost, maintenance, reliability, and obsolescence so that they can make intelligent choices.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-19-2008, 05:26 PM:
 

quote: Adam Fraser

---

This allows us to plan for the future with how much we should "put away" and at what times.

---

I see your point. Thanks for that good explanation, Adam. I guess that's why I'm not running a business.

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr

---

Are owners going to believe everyting they are told by salespeople? Not likely. What they want is straight answers about cost, maintenance, reliability, and obsolescence

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

Well, Digital Cinema is something that already IS taking place and it's not going to be an option -- so I don't see how anyone reporting "real" numbers (or not) of the costs is relevant.

It's in the vein of red-reader conversions. It wasn't a choice; you installed red-readers or you played silent movies. And, like red-readers, this change will happen because Hollywood wants it to happen.

I can't understand why people are still trying to make pro/con arguments. Game over.

---

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr

---

Are we really going to get the straight scoop on the real cost of digital conversion for independents?

---

Sure, We've sold quite a few D-Cinema systems so far. I sold a new Christie M projector just today. If you want to know how much in black and white it will cost per screen just call your local dealer. He can tell you in black and white. As for longevity... no one knows. Did we all think that DTS 6 players made in the early 90's would still be around today? Only time will answer that question. What you can do request and something that CBG can't offer is extended warranties on the equipment you buy. For instance this week we sold a Christie CP-2000SB with a 7 year warranty! The warranty costs extra but covers everything under the hood.

As for CBG we have found that many of our customers that joined have decided they'd rather buy their own gewar anyway. There are just too many strings attached to the deal... such as use for preshow... you have to pay extra for that... use for kids shows or special showings costs you extra... Again... if you want to be dangled like a marionette for 10 years, if you want to be stuck with an expensive per screen service contract go ahead and get your stuff through CBG. You will be sorry... The CBG deal that looks good on paper has alot of hidden stuff written inbetween the lines that'll cost you a lot of extra $$$$! Why not take that extra cash generated and pay for your own new gear instead of putting it in someone elses bank account???

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-19-2008, 10:43 PM:
 
Well if the CBG deal includes the virtual print fees, then it will be worth being in the CBG, since an indie cannot deal with the film companies that way. If the VPFs don't materialize, it's just a matter of sending an "I want out" letter to CBG and then making your best deal (likely a huge compromise in quality in order to make it affordable).

I can't quite understand why it's not possible for an independent to generate virtual print fees by itself. What the hell, it's all computer-generated anyway. The film companies want us gone, it's pretty transparently obvious.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 09-22-2008, 08:52 AM:
 
From my understanding (and I'm a CBG member) there will be VPF's for certain "Classes" within the CBG. Me, being a "first-run seasonal drive-in" my "class" has been pushed way back to the end of the line for any type of CBG rollout. It looks that if you're anything but full-time 7 days a week first run status...no VPF's for you!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2008, 08:59 AM:
 
Has the CBG made an actual deal with numbers attached yet? What happens to this deal if AccessIT goes bust?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2008, 09:20 AM:
 
From what we were told at the Rocky Mountain convention, the biggest hurdle to get over is the vast difference in the size of CBG members. There are circuits of around 100 screens, all the way down to single location, single screens like me. And then within that, there are locations the play every movie on the break, others (like me) who play as many movies on the break as possible but physically cannot play everything on the break; and still others who never play anything on the break. Supposedly there will be news at ShowEast.

For my own part, I would be willing to play a new film on the break every week and pay the percentage that goes with it, but we physically can't do it, because of the stupid 2 or 3 week minimum play-times.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-22-2008, 09:56 PM:
 
A customer of mine (whom is totally disgusted with CBG) gave me his copy of the latest CBG news letter that claims they would be starting installation in late 08... There are so many strings attached to the deal amongst which is an expensive service contract, extra cost to run your pre-show, and kids shows among others... you'll feel like you're a marionette, and for 10 years too!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-23-2008, 12:00 AM:
 
I would think if the CBG deal was that awful, the members would be "opting out" in droves until they made it more customer friendly.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-23-2008, 10:27 AM:
 
Are you a member, Mike? If so, you ought to look that letter over carefully. I think you'll see what Mark's talking about. It's certainly not a package that would work for me, and as cynical as I've been about , I'm looking at everything that's coming along.

In that regard (back on-topic), I suppose Boxoffice and FJ have some value. This month's editions of both are pretty much hard-core digital hype.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-23-2008, 11:41 AM:
 
Yes Mike! Many members I know still pay their dues and hope someday CBG will fulfill their claim... but many have completely dropped out after seeing all the strings attached. Digital is not out of the reality for most single screeners that do at least a "normal buisness" to lease and it's certainly the best way to go for those that do not want to shell out the cash up front. Leasing not only has many otions but the interest rates are also very low right now. The single best part about the lease is that at the end of the lease you have the option to buy out the equipment for next to nothing or continue with a new lease and get all new gear... As fast as this gear will be improving/changing the lease is for most the best route to keep up with the times.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 09-23-2008, 01:16 PM:
 
Mark,

What kind of general numbers are we talking about with something along the lines of purchasing and settign up a CP-2000-M setup. I know things vary widely by theatre but can you give a general ballpark average saying the theatre has a good sound system and good wiring, etc. Say $80-110,000 or $50-80,000? I have only heard conjecture and have yet to talk to another theatre owner that has done the conversion. I am not really interested in leasing or having someone else in control of our equipment.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-23-2008, 03:31 PM:
 
Adam, I sent you a private message with pricing.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-23-2008, 04:16 PM:
 
Now, a newbie question here: What is CBG, and it is not the best to have around?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-23-2008, 05:19 PM:
 
Cinema Buying Group

They seem not to live up to their promises and bend you over and shove it up your loop chute without a condom...
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-23-2008, 09:43 PM:
 
That's pretty wicked - sounds like new car dealerships: sucker you in on a new ride then never keeping up with their promises to their customers after the purchase - tasting it on both ends...

Being a co-op and the vendors that they associate with (with one link dead which being that NCS supply and I've had experience with David Tyson which isn't that all bad..), I'm really amazed on how they can baffle one with BS pretty good... like fishing for suckers and selling it as trout.

There's obviously a good quantity of better cinema vendors out there than the ones they associate with.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-24-2008, 06:07 PM:
 
Speaking of new cars and so on I took the Hummer in this morning to get the back door adjusted... the salesman that tried to sell me the new one a while back saw me comming in and greeted me... he wondered why I didn't buy it from him... At that point I think I ruined his morning.

Mark
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 09-25-2008, 05:07 AM:
 
I will not be renewing my Boxoffice subscription either for many of the same reasons mentioned already.

We once featured in the Independent Cinema section, I used to love reading how others marketed and ran their business. No drive-in articles either, no relavent advertising and just plain boring.

I did write about these concerns and never received a reply, after decades of loyal readership!

David
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 09-26-2008, 12:10 AM:
 
After seeing the latest issue and being an avid reader since the 40s my only question is "What is this?". I won't be renewing either.
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 10-10-2008, 01:07 AM:
 
David - when did you send your letter? If you still have a copy, please send it to peter@boxoffice.com.
Robert - no need to renew your subscription - we'll send you the magazine each month if you agree to continue commenting on it here. Deal?
We've redesigned the release chart in response to some of the comments here. If it's possible to post the pdf here, I'd love to submit it for the thoughts of this board. Is that possible?

Thanks,
Peter
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-10-2008, 01:14 AM:
 
Well now as long as we have Boxoffice people on here, I have a question.

Supposedly a subscription to the magazine comes with NATO membership. I paid my NATO membership for 08/09 in July, but my B magazine label says I expire in December and I'm getting renewal notices. What's up with that - or was the NATO+subscription thing a one-time deal?
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 10-10-2008, 01:17 AM:
 
That's a mistake. We'll need the postal address for the current subscription to fix it. Please either post it here or send it to me at peter@boxoffice.com.

Every NATO member in good standing is entitled to a free subscription to Boxoffice. If anyone else is having a problem like this, please email swebb@kable.com or call 800-877-5207.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 10-17-2008, 01:43 AM:
 
Perhaps someone has already said this but what I'd like to see is more info on the exhibition end of the business like it used to be: equipment articles (both booth and concessions), articles about a particular theatre (even classic single screeners), the death of or birth of theatres (even the big boy's multiplexes). It is, after all, "BOXOFFICE" not "Camera" or "Equipment Manufacturing" or "Actor's Journal". I don't see interviews with actors beneficial to the exhibition field.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-18-2008, 06:42 AM:
 
Robert: you are correct. Other magazines do that better and all-of-the-time for those so interested. (American Cinematographer, etc.) Boxoffice should recommit to that which needs to be done for the individual cinema; not pander to studios and corporate; groups who do not need any amateur "help." Louis
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-20-2008, 04:07 PM:
 
So, how would a print publication differentiate itself from resources that are already available online, including this fine web site?

I'm curious what publications like Box Office can bring to the table that isn't already available elsewhere?

One thing I can think of right away is the ability for such a publication to explore a topic in more depth and arrive at some conclusions on the issue at hand, all in the course of a single article. Many times, online communities are great for tapping disparate sources of information, but the loop is rarely closed where an issue is raised, explored, and then its resolution summarized.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-20-2008, 06:01 PM:
 
Scott; Boxoffice once could offer immediacy, or at least a relative immediacy. It also once offered a sense of community. One of print media's "problems" is that some things are better, faster, cheaper on line.

So, when timeliness could no longer be offered, Boxoffice ran from its roots. As it becomes more and more generic, it fails more and more in its original mission: ideas from one theatre to another. Louis
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-20-2008, 07:36 PM:
 
One would think that equipment reviews would be useful...all kinds of equipment too. Projection, sound concession...seats...you name it.

Articles on theatre design...how to improve sight-lines, lighting techniques...where the theatre can save yet have that glitzy feel....etc.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 10-23-2008, 07:13 PM:
 
Amen Steve! If my old memory serves me right Boxoffice used to do that. I used to look forward to getting that magazine with the orange cover and I'd read it from cover to cover. I'm not so sure anymore. It's not easy to even find the classifieds anymore. Why not just make the the last page and leave them there?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-23-2008, 07:27 PM:
 
Also, kinda miss the theatre openings - the gala of it all. Plus, the reports of in-house promotions of certain films with awards given to staff members.

I do believe, with all of this feedback that has been expressed in this topic, that Mr. Cane will take all of this into serious consideration and gradually return the magazine back to its glory days as the lot of us remember how it was.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-27-2008, 09:57 AM:
 
Is it simply that a print publication is an anachronism?

Given the lack of timeliness, the expense of print publication, and the tightening ad market, maybe the time for Box Office, the print magazine, has passed. I subscribe to just one print magazine, and that's largely because of habit. They have a online-only edition that would save paper and is a little cheaper, so I will go that route the next time my subscription is up.

What was once a thick, technically-laden magazine with great information has become a much thinner shadow of its former self. I'm not even sure they're going to keep the magazine in print until my current subscription ends in Jan 2010.

With the right combination of talent (on both the editorial and technical sides), I think that that Box Office, the online publication, could be successful.

With The BigScreen Cinema Guide, I've managed to make what was a sideline hobby into a business that supports itself quite nicely. It took more than 10 years to get it to that point (but only about 4-5 years full-time), but print publications don't turn profits right away either.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2008, 10:07 AM:
 
I subscribe to several print magazines and would hate to see them go to online-only, but since Boxoffice deals with such time-intensive material, maybe they should think about doing a companion online-based subscription. You get the technical, less time-intensive info in the print edition, but the movie reviews and booking charts and all that go to the online edition. I'd frankly be surprised if they're NOT already considering this option -- the website already has a breaking news section and reviews are posted there before the magazine carries them.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 10-27-2008, 07:32 PM:
 
Mike:

I believe Boxoffice does have an on-line edition.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2008, 09:49 PM:
 
Yes, but a lot of the content on there duplicates the print edition. I was thinking of a separate set of content that isn't in the print edition. You would get both for one subscription price.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-27-2008, 10:03 PM:
 
I think that Mike has the right idea.

Print publications are useful because a) they are convenient to read when not near a computer and b) they can be stored to provide useful reference material in the future (which is something that web sites are notoriously bad about). Also, not everyone has a computer or likes to read off of a screen.

I like the idea of putting the time-sensitive material online, and the non-time-sensitive material (product reviews, commentary, etc.) in the magazine. Maybe offer both for one price and have a slightly cheaper price just for the online material.

Another possibility would be to make the release chart as a paper "insert" to the magazine, so that it could be made up with far less lead time than the rest of the publication. I don't know how this would affect postage rates and such, but it's an idea worthy of consideration.
 

---

Posted by Troy Hilsman Powell (Member # 4326) on 10-27-2008, 10:07 PM:
 
I hear ya dennis benjamin.I was just getting ready to post the same opinion about the classifieds but you beat me to the punch.The only way that I would even want the mag now is because the do have a good up to date industry directory that they come out with every now and then.I used to rely on the classifieds to buy and sell equipment on the side but I guess that got shot out of the water too.MAN that sure does burn my grits.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-29-2008, 08:11 PM:
 
Bump.

The December issue arrived today. All 48 (yes, 48) pages of it (the inside front and back cover ads do not count).

This one continues the trend of not providing information that would be useful to exhibitors.

Here are the articles:

- guy who runs a box office numbers web site says that there are lots of good films scheduled to open in December (has this ever _not_ been the case?)

- guy who runs a web site about digital cinema says (using many words) that "no one can say for certain where the digital cinema rollout will go for here" (this is probably his least informative article yet)

- NATO's John Fithian (who I don't think has ever said anything remotely negative about the exhibition industry) says that the exhibition industry is recession-proof

- NATO director of media and research talks about video release windows (which is somewhat interesting, but not really useful)

- big multi-page article on the 90th anniversary of Sanborn Theatres (which reads like one big "congratulations to..." ad)

- article about the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (interesting, but not useful)

- bunch of quick blurbs and lame reviews about upcoming releases

- historical article about the initial relesae of the original TDTESS (I actually enjoy these articles, but they aren't useful)

There's nothing here that would be remotely useful to a theatre owner or theatre manager--nothing about marketing or promotion, no equipment reviews, no substantive film reviews, nothing about booking policies or strategy, and nothing else that would help the exhibitor in his business.

[ 11-29-2008, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-29-2008, 10:37 PM:
 
I haven't looked through mine, but the popcorn bag that was glued inside messed up the John Fithian article when I removed it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2008, 01:52 PM:
 

quote:

---

- NATO's John Fithian (who I don't think has ever said anything remotely negative about the exhibition industry) says that the exhibition industry is recession-proof

---

quote: Peter Cane

---

We have about 200 leather-bound volumes (about 1,500 pp each) of the magazine going back to 1924. The last of the leather volumes was scanned yesterday. We are in the process of separating these files into individual issues, and we will be posting about 3,000 weekly and about 300 monthly issues of Boxoffice by the end of the year.

---

Mr. Cane, how do we access these? I'm seeing probably less than 100 issues on issuu.com.
 

---

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 12-03-2008, 07:41 PM:
 
I found the "attached" popcorn bag to be extremely tacky for a business orient magazine. I felt like I was opening Better Homes and Gardens or something.
The advertisement orientation of Box Office has gone way too far. Even if they DID have equipment reviews, could we trust them to be objective if the manufacturers are paying for multi-page ads?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-03-2008, 07:48 PM:
 

quote: Tony Ratcliff

---

I found the "attached" popcorn bag to be extremely tacky for a business orient magazine. I felt like I was opening Better Homes and Gardens or something.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

One would think that equipment reviews would be useful...all kinds of equipment too. Projection, sound concession...seats...you name it.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Of course if those reviews were truthful the magazine would loose its advertisers one by one.

---

quote: Peter Cane

---

If you know of any qualified individuals, I'd appreciate it if you'd send your nominations to cole@boxoffice.com.

---

I am qualified, but I demand the front cover.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-07-2008, 04:17 PM:
 
Be careful what you wish for, Joe!

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-09-2008, 02:50 AM:
 
To add to what Tim has mention about the issuu site, take a gander at this page

In the search window, type in "boxoffice magazine" and see what is presented here
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-25-2008, 04:20 AM:
 
UPDATE: I received the January's issue today at our theatre and I'm totally impressed on how the layout has changed to the better!

More better organized, articles in proper place, up and coming movies towards the back in more easier format to understand...

(...and I'll forgive the stapled issue this time...it should be getting thicker as time moves on with more articles, stories and other items of interest to be printed..)

Keep up the good work - this is definitely a forward moving improvement for such a well published magazine!

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 12-26-2008, 06:41 PM:
 
Thanks for the kind words, Monte. We have some more good news. The archive is online. If you go to
www.boxoffice.com/archive you'll be able to search more than 80 years of the magazine. There are still some minor search glitches to be ironed out, so we're not doing a public launch. But I thought the film-tech.com gang (especially Tim Reed) would want a sneak peek.
Happy holidays and thanks again to all for your interest in Boxoffice.
Peter
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2008, 10:01 PM:
 
Peter,

That is way cool... Great job! I can't wait to see more of them. That 1938 issue has 200 pages... albeit 150 pages of "best wishes". Now... how do we order back issues?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-28-2008, 04:33 PM:
 
I look forward to delving though them.

As it is beta, I thought you'd like to know that the Jan 12, 1953 issues returns as Publication Not Found

Really like the ability to search, and it appears we can do Regex searches (I will have to brush up on my regex skills)
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-29-2008, 03:06 AM:
 
Hey guys! Told ya I was in the magazine. Go to the link above and type in Bob White Theatre. It'll bring up an article about the theatre when I had it. The article was published on page 30 in the August 21, 1967 edition. Also, a couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of recommending one of my former bosses for one of the new awards. Any of you made a recommendation?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2008, 09:31 AM:
 
Never made a recommendation, but I've been in B.O. a few times. I used to print a "comment" on my ballot card for the Blue Ribbon Awards - those comments almost always got published. Then a few years ago they did an interview with several small town guys about the problems faced by small independents - my wife and I appeared in that article in a photo, plus a couple comments.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-29-2008, 10:01 PM:
 
I know this is a pet peeve of many members here, and I just started to read the Fithian article. Here's a tip: stop giving him column inches. The claim that off-screen camcorder rips cost the industry $700m is both extremely ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of your readers. If we're losing 10% of our business to crappy screen rips, then the movies and the presentation are unspeakably bad. It just isn't plausible.
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 12-29-2008, 10:08 PM:
 
There is too much to absorb in the archives... arrgh!! I could spend YEARS sifting through this info.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-30-2008, 03:05 AM:
 

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren

---

I just started to read the Fithian article

---

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren

---

The claim that off-screen camcorder rips cost the industry $700m is both extremely ludicrous and insulting

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

That's like saying if you stop car thieves there would be more car sales.

---

Maybe if a person wants a car but doesn't want to pay for it, we should just allow them to steal it!
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 12-30-2008, 11:09 PM:
 
I'm glad you're all enjoying the archive as much as the staff at Boxoffice has. There were lots of project hours spent getting lost in those pages.

To Mark G. - Sorry to say that we cannot offer hard copy back issues. The close to 3,000 issues that we scanned are bound into leather volumes, unfortunately.

To Mike B. - we add each new issue to the archive as it comes off the press and will do so for the next several issues, but that may be changing in the near future.

Happy New Year to you all,
Peter
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-15-2009, 08:50 PM:
 

quote: Peter Cane

---

I thought the film-tech.com gang (especially Tim Reed) would want a sneak peek.

---

OH, Yes!!! THANK YOU! Fantastic!

quote: Scott Norwood

---

check out my article on successful independent theatres in the February issue

---

Congratulations, Scott! I will definitely check it out. Good man.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-18-2009, 03:22 AM:
 
Excellent article there, "Mr. Scott" -Monte
 

---

Posted by Kenneth James Bacon (Member # 5096) on 01-21-2009, 12:24 PM:
 
Hello:

If you read Boxoffice - and I know that you do - you've seen my name. This month, my monthly column Timecode is titled Screen Test and challenges our readers to identify the titles of 15 films from their one-sheets from which the titles have been surgically removed. Give it a try. Send me your answers (ken@boxoffice.com). Perfect entries will be touted and heralded in next month's issue. Thanks for reading.

cheers,

KJB
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-21-2009, 01:18 PM:
 
I don't read Boxoffice. I've never seen your name. Well, I have now. But since I am typing in this reply box right this second, your name is not visible and I cannot remember it. But I do have a craving for some delicious bacon.

PS - I liked you in Apollo 13.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-21-2009, 01:30 PM:
 
(Joe's thinking of Kevin Bacon....)

Yes, saw that section in the FEB issue and did recognize some of those posters with correct titles...

Kind of a version of those old Scholastic Magazines we used to get in school moons ago that had an activity page in them.

Found this to be to be refreshing to insert this in BO magazine.

Keep the magic coming, for it's working.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-21-2009, 03:28 PM:
 
Kenneth Bacon: Welcome to Film-Tech. I'm glad to see yet another person from Boxoffice on here and that you guys are really listening to our concerns/suggestions and striving to make improvements.

(Don't mind Joe Redifer - we just keep him around for the laughs.)
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 01-21-2009, 09:12 PM:
 
Scott Norwood said: "Shameless plug: check out my article on successful independent theatres in the February issue."
____________________________________________________________________

I read the article Scott. Kudos to you. You echo my feelings. And how refreshing it is to see someone from your generation actually sees the faults in most multiplexes and the corporations that run them. There really is an exhibition industry outside of multiplexes.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-22-2009, 02:50 PM:
 
Welcome, Mr. Bacon.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-24-2009, 10:21 PM:
 
Great article Scott.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2009, 01:51 PM:
 
Agreed, excellent article by Scott and the overall issue was good too.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-27-2009, 01:44 PM:
 
What happened to the search function?

http://boxoffice.com/archive/

They had it set up where you could search the entire archive, now that function seems to have disappeared. You can only search the current issue, or the "featured" archive issues.

???
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-06-2009, 11:09 PM:
 
I've just read the March issue and while it's rather thin I've got to say it seems a lot easier to read (the page layouts). There are some good articles on the award winners and the Eisentraut family and its Orpheum Theatre. And the classifieds are where you'd expect them - in the back. But it seems when writers do major articles on the "industry" they don't think beyond multiplexes in major metro areas like Phil Contrino's "Communal Experience" and Kindrick MacDowell's "Digital" article. They need to find a writer who will investigate the small town and rural independent exhibitors and report on what is or can be done to improve their lot.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-10-2009, 01:41 PM:
 

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

They need to find a writer who will investigate the small town and rural independent exhibitors and report on what is or can be done to improve their lot.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I am enjoying the "Boxoffice Weekend Predictions" emails.

---

And what's REALLY odd is that I am receiving these too...yet I did not sign up for them. What is the definition of spam again?
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 03-27-2009, 10:46 AM:
 
Brad - We only send The BOXOFFICE Report to people who have signed up for it. If you didn't, you shouldn't be receiving it. Please click the "unsubscribe" button at the bottom of the page. Problem solved. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-30-2009, 09:36 PM:
 
The May edition arrived today. They seem to be working on making it easier to read and more about exhibition. I especially enjoyed the article on the Michigan Theatre by Cole Hornaday. What a beautiful palace.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-01-2009, 01:03 AM:
 
How DO you sign up for them?
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-01-2009, 01:55 AM:
 
Sounds like its time for a re-jigged "International Projectionist". That was a great read!

Agree on "Boxoffice"- too much like "ET" in magazine format. More pap in a sea of mediocrity.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-01-2009, 01:22 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

How DO you sign up for them?

---

John:

If you're asking about the magazine you can do it on-line at www.boxoffice.com.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-16-2009, 03:56 AM:
 
I was idly flipping through this month's Boxoffice tonight, not really reading much of anything, when all of a sudden, I saw a picture of a very familiar marquee. The magnificent Michigan Theater, in Ann Arbor, was featured as Boxoffice's Marquee Award, or something like that. For those that don't know, the Michigan is the most wonderful theater. It is overshadowed in sheer grandness by Detroit's Redford Theater, but the programming and the not surrounded by dangerous ghetto aspect of the Michigan raise it to the level of my most favorite theater ever. Seriously, if man could marry cinema, I would be standing in the middle of Liberty Street right now playing Peter Gabriel out of a boom box, that is how good the Michigan is.

So, step in the right direction, Boxoffice. Now just fill the rest of your magazine every month with articles about theaters I love, and you'll be in perfect shape. Although, if it weren't for the ad for the CP750, I might not have known about some new piece of equipment I'll likely never see.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-16-2009, 04:08 PM:
 
I saw that article and loved it Galen. I'd like to see Boxoffice include articles on the projection room - both platter and change-over booths.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-16-2009, 04:13 PM:
 
Sorry Robert, but film is dead. Only digital booths are to be featured.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-16-2009, 07:22 PM:
 
I don't know what you've been reading Aaron but the majority of booths in this country still run film and there are even some change-over booths operating. While digital may grow film will be with us for a long time.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-16-2009, 09:05 PM:
 
I know, I was only joking with you given what was written in earlier posts and other threads. Its sometimes hard to convey sarcasm on the internet without using one of those graemlin expressions.

Seeing more articles and photo spreads on film-based projection booths would be great, but this forum has covered this question so many times in the past, I'm afraid we both know what the answer is.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-17-2009, 01:51 AM:
 
Got it Aaron. It's in Boxoffice where I'd like to see the articles. It used to be a regular part of the magazine "back in the day". I get the impression that publisher Peter Cane really listens to us when we make suggestions (and he reads this thread).
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-17-2009, 11:21 AM:
 
Boxoffice gets its money from digital, hence the editorial content is exclusively digital. If film paid the bills, then the editorial content would be film.

This is why many feel that Boxoffice is a full'zine ad. Louis
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 05-18-2009, 08:21 PM:
 
I had a two year subscription to Box Office a few years ago. I too thought that too much of it was digital based ads and not enough stuff geared towards film equipment. I no longer work in a theater and I am just a hobbyist. I liked learning about new pieces of equipment through the ads and still feeling connected to the industry a little. Unfortunately, digital projectors are not exciting to me and I would rather be waterboarded than read about them. The issues seemed to be getting smaller and smaller and I finally lost interest. I let my subscription lapse.

I remember just a few years ago when I was still working on my degree, I used to go to the bottom floor of the school library and find a quite cubicle in some corner to study in. Much of the time I ended up falling asleep or leafing through books that had nothing to do with school. One such book I happened upon by accident. I was walking between the book shelves and looked over and there was a bound book of a bunch of really old Box Office magazines from the 60's and 70's. I spent most of my study hours just looking through ads for old equipment. I even own some of the equipment that was in the ads which made it much more interesting to read.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-18-2009, 08:45 PM:
 
Hey Josh, perhaps you should try the archives at the Boxoffice on-line site. I even found an article on me from a 1967 issue.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-23-2009, 09:01 PM:
 

quote: Joshua Waaland

---

I was walking between the book shelves and looked over and there was a bound book of a bunch of really old Box Office magazines from the 60's and 70's. I spent most of my study hours just looking through ads for old equipment.

---

When I was earning my degree at Youngstown State I used a bunch of old articles from Box Office as source material in a film history course. My thesis examined A-list actor/actress pay and if they are really worth the money. In my research I actually discovered that if one adjusts for inflation Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Gary Cooper actually made more than what people like Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and the Arnold Schwarzenegger make today.
 

---

Posted by Cole Hornaday (Member # 5067) on 06-02-2009, 02:18 PM:
 
Hi Everyone,
Cole Hornaday here, Contributing Writer with Boxoffice Magazine. I fear I've been lurking here for some time and wanted to at least show my face. As you might guess from my efforts with the Marquee Award articles, I am very fond of industry history and evolution. I'm always looking for suggestions for the three areas I cover, the Boxoffice Front Line, Front Office, and Marquee awards. Any suggestions you may have are always welcome.

Also: I'm in the process of putting together an obituary for the late Charles Wolk passed away May 12, 2009. He spent his entire life in the manufacturing
of projection repair parts. If anyone knew Mr. Wolk and has stories they may with to share, please don't hesitate to contact me.

...before I get banned the next time I post my email address since I failed to read the rules.


Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-02-2009, 06:21 PM:
 
Welcome Cole. Good to have you here. I enjoy your articles. I guess you couldn't do anything with my recommendation?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-03-2009, 07:44 AM:
 
The July issue arrived yesterday and it gets two thumbs way up from me. Almost every article is both interesting and practical. This is the best single issue that I've seen in years.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-03-2009, 06:21 PM:
 
Well, at the risk of discussing politics, the "Law & Order" feature on their lobbying preferences is neither useful nor informative. I get it that NATO hates unions, but to say the Employee Free Choice Act will "thereby eliminate secret ballot elections" is a flat out lie.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-04-2009, 10:46 AM:
 
I won't defend the NATO articles. Fithian's articles are generally pretty worthless puff pieces. The NATO attorney is clearly smarter and is also a better writer. He usually has something worthwhile to say, although he obviously has his own agenda as well.

From what I can tell, NATO isn't really a very useful organization, and these articles often seem to be an attempt to justify NATO's existence.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 07-04-2009, 12:25 PM:
 
Agreed 100%.
 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 07-20-2009, 11:45 PM:
 
Sorry Martin, but from what I've read of the bill, that's exactly what it will do.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-28-2009, 05:53 PM:
 
In the July issue of Boxoffice Amy Nicholson quoted Millard Ochs President of Warner Bros. International Cinemas. Regarding the IOSONO sound system being tested at Mann’s Chinese Theatre in LA (I thought they were going back to using the Grouman’s name). He said “Imagine a U2 concert in 3D with IOSONO sound. Bono’s voice will follow him around on the stage….”. Since when you attend a concert in person the sound DOES NOT follow a singer around the stage but comes out of a massive set of speakers in fixed positions that causes the sound to come from center stage I wonder if the developers of the IOSONO system are going to cause the sound to be exaggerated or do unnatural things. Have any of you LA Film-Techers heard the system? If so what do you think?
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-28-2009, 07:50 PM:
 
IOSONO seems like another unnecessary, expensive, piece of useless crap that the industry will try to foist off on exhibitors. Once you are 1/3 to 1/2 way back at concerts and cinema it sounds like it is coming from the same general direction anyway.

What will they want to screw us with most, D Cinema or IOSONO?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2009, 09:41 PM:
 

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

I wonder if the developers of the IOSONO system are going to cause the sound to be exaggerated or do unnatural things.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Since music these days is pretty much consumed by making sounds do unnatural things, this isn't much of a surprise, but I totally agree with you -- it'd sound un-concertlike.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

It's not techno-gadgets that will get the movie fan into the theatre

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Anybody knows more about studio support for the Technicolor thing (for real, beyond the PR announcements)?

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I'm waiting for the price announcements for the new wave of 4K projectors, but I think it's gonna be ludicrous

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I was told by the people at Christie that they are aiming for a much lower price point than the Sony 4K equipment. With the simplicity of the new projectors and the internal media block system they should be able to pull that off.

---

And I hope they are talking about the new improved Sony 4K model. Just in sheer weight and raw material reduction, it should be at least a few hundred $$ cheaper

Sony RSX-R320 and LMT-300 media block and STM-100 TMS

If it's true that they are planning on sensible pricing, then it might pose a threat to 35mm outside the rich-world. Now they only need to release them ASAP or continue to put black tape over the "IN 3-D" text on the posters for longer than necessary.

And if only distributors worldwide would get their heads out of their @sses and follow Paramount in offering almost-no-questions-asked VPF's .... done!

Recently they overprinted 35mm copies of the (spanish) film Planet 51 and were calling everyone around begging on their knees to take 2 prints ....
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-04-2009, 06:21 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I got my copy yesterday. I didn't see anything in the 3D article that was factually incorrect. The historical perspective might have been interesting, but would not be useful to anyone except those who want to be able to run older 3D titles (which might be one or two dozen theatres in the country, at most).

The point of the article was just that this new (or revived) system may, if there is studio support, make new 3D releases available to theatres and communities that could not previously afford it.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

In the July issue of Boxoffice Amy Nicholson quoted Millard Ochs President of Warner Bros. International Cinemas. Regarding the IOSONO sound system being tested at Mann’s Chinese Theatre in LA (I thought they were going back to using the Grauman’s name).

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

I’d like to say it’s because the industry is pumping out a lot of good stories but my mom taught me never to lie.

---

Evidently a lot of people in this industry aren't listening to their moms.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-19-2010, 09:04 AM:
 

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

I have been reading Boxoffice Magazine since the mid-forties. I have seen the changes in recent years and I think it is headed in the right direction.

---

quote: Manny Montes

---

I noticed how infatuated they are with Digital, theres even an opinion piece in this one that bashes film 3D

---

To be fair, there is a much more prominent article in praise of film 3D -- an interview with a guy whose chain looks at film 3D as helping withe digital transition. And, the issue is billed as their annual look at digital cinema, so it's not too surprising. They've had a lot of film-theatre related articles lately.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-09-2010, 03:06 PM:
 
With no less than six articles touting digital and/or 3-D this month's Boxoffice edition (or at least the authors of the articles) have all but proclaimed film dead. With only about 5,000 of this country's estimated 40,000 screens now digital (and those mostly in the large metro areas) I'm not ready to count film out. And you can bet the financing program that has been put together by the corporate big boys will not trickle down to the small town and rural operators. Could this be an attempt by the corporate big boys (and allies such as Boxoffice) to suffocate the little guy and force movie goers into their metroplexes?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-09-2010, 07:14 PM:
 
Quite frankly, I don't think the corporate big boys and their allies know we exist. (Or care, either.) But the magazine HAS featured a lot of articles on smaller operations over the past year, and this particular issue WAS featuring digital cinema, so I don't think they've exactly declared film dead yet.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-09-2010, 07:29 PM:
 
Only in this industry can the major industry magazines and journals even try to declare film dead (assumed or otherwise)- especially when the vast majority of cinemas continue to use film.

Mind you, after reading recent articles in Boxoffice, Cinema Technology &tc, that's exactly the impression one would get.
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 03-10-2010, 12:22 AM:
 
Well, I'm glad to see that the BOXOFFICE conversation is still going on!
March was indeed our annual Digital/3D issue, so we had naturally had lots of coverage of those topics. But our film coverage is year-round. In fact, we're looking for expert contributor(s) for an upcoming story on issues in film projection. Any volunteers? Please let me know or drop a note to our Editor, Amy Nicholson (amy@boxoffice.com).

Also thanks to those who've noticed our increased coverage of independent operators. All story ideas and suggestions for personality profiles are welcomed by Amy and me.

I hope to meet some of you at ShoWest next week.

Thanks for reading BOXOFFICE,
Peter
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-10-2010, 03:14 PM:
 
Yes Peter, I'm aware that the March issue was a digital special. It's right there on the front cover. I was glad to see the report on Bow Tie cinemas using Technicolor's film 3D. I'm conducting a little survey on a website (not related to the theatre business) and asking, among other things, if they would attend a film just because it's in 3D. So far all the respondents have said "no". I would like to see articles on the latest projection equipment (both film and digital) and how they operate. As for experts I would encourage you to ask Brad Miller (who owns this site). There's also Ken Layton. You'll find him over on 16mm Film Talk. I don't consider myself an expert.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-29-2010, 08:46 PM:
 
There's a nice piece in the April issue about the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which is one of the top independent houses in the Boston area. It almost got turned into a furniture store in the late 1980s, but was saved by some local residents who turned it into a nonprofit cinema. Anyone who is in the area should check it out. (Sadly, their bookings have become almost entirely mainstream over the last year or two, but it's still a gorgeous theatre.)

As for the NATO section--what happened to Kendrick Macdowell, the former NATO lawyer? I actually enjoyed reading his columns, which were generally relevant and well written. Apparently, he has been replaced (why?). Hopefully, the new guy will have something worthwhile to say to counter Fithian's usual puff piece.

I thought that the March issue was a little bit weak (in a 3D issue, I would have liked to have seen a technical article on the various 3D systems, as well as some commentary by a theatre owner who has chosen not to install 3D at all), but Boxoffice is definitely a stronger publication that it was when I started this thread two years ago. I hope that this trend will continue.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-30-2010, 01:20 AM:
 
I agree with you Scott about wanting to see something by someone who has decided against digital/3D. There was the Technicolor 3D piece by the head of Bow-Tie Cinemas. I agree too that the mag is getting better. But I miss the traditional red covers. Now if it's mixed in with any other magazines it'll be hard to see. Those were distinctive covers. I didn't appreciate what some might consider a vulgar title being splashed all over the front of the thing. Do you suppose the distributor pushed or paid for that?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-30-2010, 05:59 AM:
 
I don't even think that the 3D discussion needs to involve -- the two aren't necessarily related. I would just like to hear from some theatre owner who does not think that 3D would add anything to the type of film programming that he offers.

It was also interesting to see that Ted Mundorff (Landmark Theatres' CEO) was able to take the time to write an article for this issue, but was not able to take the time to answer the letter that I wrote to him in August about Landmark's inane trailer policies.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-30-2010, 11:08 AM:
 
What are Landmark's inane trailer policies?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-30-2010, 11:56 AM:
 
Trailer schedules used to be done by the local theatre managers. Trailers were only to be shown for confirmed bookings, and they were to be shown in reverse-release-date order (e.g. trailers for films opening next week were to be shown last). If the bookings or release dates changed, the trailer order changed. Also, as of a few years ago, they did not show commercials. Inappropriate trailers were not programmed on films that would attract a "family" crowd.

More recently, commercials have been added, but the same general principles applied. While it resulted in many trailer changes, this method worked well.

Within the last year or two, the company switched to centralized trailer scheduling. The person who does this is not very good at it, and regularly programs trailers that the theatre does not have, or programs trailers and commercials which are not appropriate for the feature being shown (e.g. vodka commercials on G-rated features). Additionally, the order now seems random, with the same trailers programmed in a different order on different features. The end result is that more than half of the provided trailer schedules have errors that must be fixed at the theatre level, resulting in wasted time, confusion, and errors.

I wrote to Mr. Mundorff to make him aware of this situation and request that the older system be brought back. I received no response, which I consider to be extremely rude. I have no idea if the letter actually made it to his desk (Fedex indicated that it was delivered to his office), but someone should have at least sent a form-letter response.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-04-2010, 07:26 AM:
 
Scott, I went to Landmark's Nuart Theatre in Los Angeles about two months ago or so, for their British Noir series, and your description of how they used to do things with their trailers was pretty much how they did their trailers, at least for that show. Five trailers, all of movies confirmed to be playing at the Nuart, in order from the last one booked to the one opening the following week.

Maybe the person who does the trailer programming for the East Coast does things differently from the way the West Coast person does it?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-04-2010, 01:20 PM:
 
Sometimes they do get it right (and perhaps more attention is given to the west-coast theatres).

My point was more that it's rude for anyone to not respond to letters with legitimate questions or concerns, whether from customers, employees, or others.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-05-2010, 07:52 PM:
 

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

Only in this industry can the major industry magazines and journals even try to declare film dead (assumed or otherwise)- especially when the vast majority of cinemas continue to use film.

Mind you, after reading recent articles in Boxoffice, Cinema Technology &tc, that's exactly the impression one would get.

---

I think that's unfair. Digital cinema is still relatively new and there's lots of issues concerning its implementation. So it's natural for a trade publication to be writing a lot about the issue. What's left to write about concerning film projection that hasn't been said hundreds of times before?

Besides, the latest issue was a special issue devoted to digital cinema.

Having said that, I had high hopes for Boxoffice after they released the first few issues under the new management team a few years ago, but it's once again gotten pretty lame since. I realize that the advertising market is bad, so most recent issues have been slim, but the design and writing have both slipped since the initial relaunch. The only articles I really enjoy are those about theatre operators and old theatres.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-06-2010, 01:31 AM:
 
It's taken well over a decade for the digital manufacturers, their backers and the studios to get digital into one-tenth of the screens in the U.S. At that rate we'll all be dead before a complete switch-over which I really don't think will ever happen. Eventually the studios will settle for a reduction in their film print and shipping costs rather than a total elimination.

ABC News picked up a story on 3D this past week. In it they had some idiot saying "eventually everyone will be showing only 3D and and people will think 2D is old fashioned and won't watch it". They didn't clearly identify that guy but you can bet he has a vested interest in 3D production, distribution or equipment manufacturing.

The April issue of Boxoffice is a good looking issue. It's thicker (probably thanks to the Show west report). There have been great improvements in film projection equipment in the last 15-20 years but I don't remember seeing as many articles on that as I have seen recently on digital.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2010, 09:23 AM:
 
Well...digital cinema is accelerating, whether any of us film fans want to admit it or not. As for why there aren't a lot of articles on the advances in film projector technology...who is scrambling to put in new film projectors these days?

Boxoffice is an industry-centered mag, so it only makes sense that they would be writing more about the way that industry is heading. At least they're not spreading doom-and-gloom.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-06-2010, 01:05 PM:
 
Actually Mike, my concern is for the little guy like yourself (and like I hope to be again). Hollywood will always cater to the corporate big boys. I wonder if eventually small town and rural folks will have to travel to the nearest large city to see a movie (in a theatre). I hope, if I ever get up your way, to drop in and check out your operation.

What you say about Boxoffice's coverage in advancing film technology makes sense. I think the mag will continue to improve.
 

---

Posted by Amy Nicholson (Member # 5647) on 04-09-2010, 04:27 PM:
 
Seconding Peter Cane above, BOXOFFICE welcomes article ideas on the whole spectrum of exhibition: a rural operator you think deserves applause, a smart promotion that boosted your box office, a technical tip or trouble-shooting guide. Something you'd like to share? Shoot me an email:

In our May issue, we're debuting a new column on Industry Briefs similar to the bite-sized round ups we used to run. Definitely pass along your news.

3D and digital are big news -- they've been huge sales-boosters -- but let's not let film get squeezed out of the conversation. I live in LA, so I'm lucky to be surrounded by old movie houses that would never show AVATAR. I love the diversity. But as a girl from the Midwest, I'd like to see that diversity promoted in all corners of the country.

And as Peter said, thanks for reading.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-03-2010, 01:52 PM:
 
I like the new "Industry Briefs" section Amy. Reminds me of the old Boxoffice and keeps us up to date in a brief and concise manner. However, this month I find myself a little annoyed with Phil Contrino. Well, maybe not so much him but what he said in his "The news cycle attacks 3D" column. He reminds me of the cheerleaders at a football game when our team is losing 30 to 0 and we're starting the fourth quarter. Cheering the rooters on is not necessarily going to win the game. 3D IS a gimmick as proven by it's previous incarnations and the conversion of "Titans" from 2D to 3D (I can just see the producers sitting around the table saying "Maybe it'll do better if we convert it to 3D." In my research I have not been able to find anyone who would go to see a film simply because it's in 3D. And you know very well that when Hollywood makes a film in 3D they design camera shots to create a response from the audience. As I've said before, lets work on creating good stories. THAT'S what will sell tickets. And frankly, the "event pricing" for 3D films is nothing more than an attempt to bleed the customers dry. It will and then they will stop coming.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-03-2010, 03:15 PM:
 

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

In my research I have not been able to find anyone who would go to see a film simply because it's in 3D.

---

That's interesting....people I've talked to around here are going to the 3-D movies in Billings by the carload. Not just the teens, either.

The worst thing about not having 3-D, for me, is when people are excitedly buying their tickets for an Avatar or an Alice, and then they ask is it in 3-D, and I say no, sorry, we don't have 3-D. They still go to the movie but their face just falls when I tell them. I hate disappointing people.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 05-03-2010, 08:43 PM:
 
Ever since Avatar I have noticed a lot more people asking if we have the 3D version of films. We played Avatar on 35mm for a week after Dragon came out and there were quite a few patrons that were disappointed that it was not in 3D. Heck, we even have had a few people that come in asking for the 3D version of a movie that is not even in 3D nor has it been advertised as being 3D.

I think this round of 3D is different than its predecessors. The 3D effect is much better and that is why its much more popular and people are willing to pay the small premium in most cases; granted our up-charge is only $2 compared to the $3-5 at other locations around here. I have even noticed a few people commenting on liking the disposable RealD glasses compared to the re-usable glasses at some locations since ours are always clean and spotless.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-13-2010, 03:29 AM:
 
I was pleased to see in the June issue Boxoffice returning to a practice that has been missing for some time - film promotion suggestions (p43). This month's suggestion is for "Grown Ups". Since in the U.S. films are generally released in the east first and work their way across the country perhaps they could post suggestions from exhibitors who have already run films.
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 07-16-2010, 08:48 AM:
 
Several of you have asked me about our archive, so I'm pleased to tell you that it is now online at http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/the_vault
The last 30 years are available now, and we're adding about a decade per week.
Enjoy!
Peter
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-03-2011, 12:50 PM:
 
For those who have not seen it yet, there is a nice article about Martin McCaffery and his theatre in the current issue.
 

---

Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 02-03-2011, 01:28 PM:
 
Excuse me, but is this Box Office magazine you talk about, anything like we used to have year ago called Screen International?, I was always glued to it, and hoped to get it first when the post arrived
at the cinema, really miserable if it didn`t arrive on saturday.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-03-2011, 03:59 PM:
 
Hi Alan: Boxoffice is a trade journal that reports on the exhibition industry and film production. It has been around in one form or another since the early part of the last century. They have an on-line edition as well. www.boxoffice.com
 

---

Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 02-03-2011, 06:12 PM:
 
Hello Robert oh dear, i have just found the online version, now i`ll be glued for ever,soooo many pages and so little time, i just love this stuff, cinema addict
 

---

Posted by Peter Cane (Member # 4730) on 02-03-2011, 07:37 PM:
 
Hi Alan - glad you've become a member of the "addicted to the archive" club. Any and all feedback is appreciated.

All the best,
Peter Cane (Boxoffice Publisher)
 

---

Posted by Mike Rivest (Member # 5500) on 06-24-2011, 05:48 PM:
 
The vault is now complete.
 

---