Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Battle For Terra. How did it do for you?

This is topic Battle For Terra. How did it do for you? 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=002215

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 05-02-2009, 01:37 AM:

We had our grand opening of our 3D Digital cinema with Battle for Terra and had a whopping 18 people come to the movie all day. 6 of which were Employees and I think at least another six were friends or family of the employees who went to see it. How well did it do for you in your theatres?

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-02-2009, 03:46 AM:

My boss walked out of it after 10 minutes at ShoWest so we didn't open it. Besides, we don't have 3D so there was no reason to open it.

I haven't had a single person ask me about the movie - either through our web site or in person at the theatre. That alone tells me it's a dud.

I think Terra may turn out to be the first 3D stinker out of what appears to be a trend of making 3D animated movies specifically for 3D - rather than making a good animated movie and making it in 3D. I have a feeling there will be many bodies on the side of the road by the time it's all said and done.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-02-2009, 08:21 AM:

It was tracking at a zero awareness this week. That was down from it's high of 1.

I don't know how it got the 1100 runs that it did. A lot of 3D screens held Monsters vs. Aliens, the movie is aweful by all accounts, multiple prints are booked for Wolverine that must play through week 2 when theaters will need multiple prints for Star Trek. This thing could break the record for lowest opening weekend of all time of a wide release (and will probably gross less than a lot of very limited releases).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2009, 09:44 AM:

Maybe this movie will stop the "If it's in 3-D then it will generate scads of money!!!" hysteria that has been gripping the studios.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 05-02-2009, 10:25 AM:

Pretty sure Jonas Brothers already did that

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-02-2009, 11:37 AM:

3D probably does bring a little extra money in the way of 3D-surcharge and a few more patrons that get the kick of the novelty, until they've watched 187 (perhaps a few less) 3D movies and then it won't interesting any more.

But, once again, that little extra money goes to slightly more expensive 3D production and considerably more expensive 3D exhibition (unless you are already digital). 3D glasses are not free. Extra bright lamps are not free, nor is the electricity they suck. Extra gain screens are not free and they usually require some "frequent" replacement. Nor is free the 3D equipment itself, cleaning, etc.

Do they end up producing more profit than if they were 2D? Well, maybe. Not for this movie, where the cost of exhibition (to empty auditoriums) and of production (almost double rendering farm time) probably won't cover the expense. Or barely. But not enough to produce extra profits, I don't think. 3D equipment also breaks-down or needs updates or replacements.

Do they produce 2, 3, 4 times more profit than 2D films? Yeah, right. You'd be lucky if you gross 30% on a movie that is 3D than the same movie if it opened 2D-only in the same market. 20% more for the surcharge and perhaps 5-10% more extra attendance. If the movie is good or fun or 3D-fun.

What's funny is that I hear (haven't seen it, may not be the case, just a rumor) this movie is almost an exact copy of Cameron's upcoming 3D film Avatar.

Of course Cameron is doing the physics simulation thing instead of traditional CGI animation mixed with life action, so that is known to be awesome and will blow people away, so it won't flop like this other film even if their scripts have strong resemblances. Again, I haven't seen Terra or read the script to compare it with Avatar's, so it may be just not the case, but those are the comments I read somewhere.

EDIT: I just saw the trailer for Terra. Doesn't seem that close to Avatar's script at all, so there.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-02-2009, 12:24 PM:

Hey...we've already received a request to not only not add another 3D screen but to MOVE the existing 3D equipment to a smaller auditorium so the 3D features don't tie up a large theatre that a conventional movie could be generating money in!

Steve

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-02-2009, 01:23 PM:

$250,000 Friday gross from 1162 theatres. The $215 average has to be a record low for that wide of a release. The thing will be lucky to crack $1 million for the opening weekend.
Friday 5/1/09 Grosses from Box Office Mojo

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-02-2009, 01:49 PM:

I don't honestly recall seeing a commercial for it at all. If I do now, it may jog my memory, but there's definitely zero awareness in this house, and I'm always on the lookout for 3D.

Someone must have known it's a stinker and decided not to throw good money after bad by advertising it?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-02-2009, 02:06 PM:

Thing is it doesn't seem to be ALL that bad, in the sense it gets a 7.6 in IMDB, a B- in boxofficemojo and 5.6-out-of-10 in rotten tomatoes.

Some people like it as a half-decent animated sci-fi flick. Obviously not your average-joe public 10-yo Disney kid, though.

In comparison, Jonas Bros 3D got a 34% in tomatoes, a "D" in officemojo, and a 1.3/10 in IMDB.

Obviously marketing does count for something.

And good thing they didn't have to strike 1000 35mm prints ...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2009, 04:17 PM:

Humm, I didn't even know it was out! Not that I'd go see it...

quote: Mike Blakesley
Maybe this movie will stop the "If it's in 3-D then it will generate scads of money!!!" hysteria that has been gripping the studios.

Yep! The Jonas Bros did proove that theory.

quote:
Hey...we've already received a request to not only not add another 3D screen but to MOVE the existing 3D equipment to a smaller auditorium so the 3D features don't tie up a large theatre that a conventional movie could be generating money in!

Just about all of our customers have had two 3-D screens from day one and because of the "Dolby Special Sale" we just added Dolby 3-D to two smaller screens for a Dolby customer.

Master image makes 3-D in multiple rooms very easy since the unit can easily wheel between screens and plug into the second and smaller auditoriums machine. There are alot of good 3-D things to be released comming up however so moving single 3-D machines to smaller rooms may also be a big mistake... Our Dolby customer when he had but one machine at each location choose the mid size rooms! You might want to do quick disconnects for everything to keep the flexibility so you can move it back to the big room easily when the crowds line up down the sidewalks. That may happen for "UP" and "Open Season"...

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-03-2009, 08:59 AM:

The location of 3D is a conundrum. You need the capacity of the big houses for opening weekend but you don't need it after that. If it's not an all digital complex it doesn't matter which 3D system you have, you can't easily move it.

It's not a huge issue if you have largish medium houses then you can either put the 3D in there and still be ok for openings or you can put the 3D in the big ones and open your 2D in medium and usually be ok.

The issue is locations where the big houses are much bigger than the medium. Then you're stuck with week 5 of Monsters vs. Aliens in a 300 seat auditorium when all you need is 100 seats.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-03-2009, 10:28 AM:

Yeah. I'm consulting on converting a single screen on a 5 screens multiplex to 3D later this year. It will have to be digital, of course.

No matter which system you use, if you want to easily move it between two auditoriums, well, both auditoriums need to be digital, really.

Thankfully there is a "medium sized" screen in there that can act as a large and small house at the same time, so that's where it's going.

Distributors are going to be happy when the theater starts requesting (for non-3D films) both, a 35mm print for the opening weekend and a digital one if the film is big enough for the medium auditorium for a while longer. Then, perhaps, another 35mm print for the smaller houses if they wish to show it a bit longer and enough business is made out of them.

Unless they start offering VPF, that's the way it's gonna go.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-03-2009, 10:41 AM:

I've certainly advised that with just a single screen of 3D to use a mid-sized...however there is this feeling that if I spend all this money....I need the big theatre to get my money back.

In the theatre in question...we are only moving the projector...the theatres are side-by-side...I'm just going to extend the cables (coax, audio (AES3) and Ethernet). It will make moving it back a snap. The fact that the new breaker panel that was installed for the digital system is also located between the two screens will make it a snap. I fully expect the projector to move back some day (or a new equivalent projector to move in some day).

Steve

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-03-2009, 11:18 AM:

That sounds good. I thought about something similar, but in this theater, the situation is good the way it is.

The main screen is overly large (600 seats, two floors-balcony type, wide auditorium) and is separated from the other 4, which are then next to each other with the booth being one continous long room for them.

The second screen is a nice medium sized 300 seats with a 11m (35') screen and is "narrow", so it's better for the polarized 3D with a "smaller" projector. The next one is around 230 seats and the others around 160 seats.

One day all screens will be digital, but until distributors start passing their savings to the theater, it will remain mostly 35mm only, with the single digital screen being there to cash in into the early 3D with higher ticket prices and to show films from whichever distributor is willing to pay VPF only.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-06-2009, 02:07 AM:

(What a topic drift, but I'll chime in..)

Okey, you drop two dig units in a smaller complex being of 10 screens or less. Where would you put your dig units - in one big house and one small house, or in both big houses?

Now, you got two less prints on the premises, yet, one of these dig prints needs to move out of one of the houses since the feature is fading off into the sunset, but still have enough legs to keep around for another week or so....

If you have your dig units in both big houses, then you're gonna have to bring in a print just to move that feature to the smaller houses to take over the role as the 'fading' print.

So, what do you do, or what would you need to do to keep things in a win/win situation?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-06-2009, 08:18 AM:

In one medium house and one small house. Think Master Image !!! Not Real-D umb!!Then you can just roll the 3-D unit to the smaller screen the same day you open a bummer film if necessary or so to say if the film you're playing has the "Jonas Brothers" syndrome. If you have a very knowledgable booker he can also arrange for some studios to give you a film print AND a 2-D digital print to keep your other digital projector busy. This give you the flexibility to play a given title in digital or from film... or from both if it's a rare blockbuster. I'll be installing 6 more Master Image 3-D systems over the next few weeks...

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-06-2009, 09:27 AM:

Mark,

Your advise requires two digital projectors. If you're going to have 2 digital projectors you can have both equipped with Real-D at no additional (upfront) cost (you're not paying Real-D anything when running a 2D movie) and just run 2D in the big house.

The issue is that while it's pretty easy to make a business case for one digital projector and 3D setup (if nothing else, just to preserve market share) the case doesn't work as well for adding a second one unless your location can support two 3D prints and gross very well on opening weekend. Otherwise you're just spending at least $60,000+ for a move down house or a play out house.

The better solution, if you have an adjacent smaller auditorium, is to design a track system that you can move the entire digital 3D setup to a smaller auditorium for move downs. You'd play all non-3D (for the most part) in 35mm and avoid the need for 35mm and digital prints of 2D movies. From experience, unless you open a 2D on two screens 1 digital, 1 35mm and drop the digital print in week 3 or 4 to keep the 35mm version, the 35mm print you will get of a 2D movie to replace the digital print will be a used print coming from megaplexes reducing screen count.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-06-2009, 12:39 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Not Real-D umb!!

LOL! That made my day!

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-06-2009, 04:33 PM:

Returning to the topic, this picture proved to be a big turkey. Grosses were horrendous.

We did not show this in 3D, and a red flag went up as soon as I handled it, as I noticed that they didn't even bother with DTS or Dolby digital. Obviously saving money on whatever few prints they made.

This opus will be in and out of most places in a week.

Kind of proves a point often expressed by many people on this site: if you make [bs]

, it doesn't matter whether it's 3D or 2D.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-07-2009, 01:50 AM:

A bomb it was. It grossed an estimated $1.3m in the past 7 days or so. Something like $1000 per screen. More money for RealD. Oh, wait, that includes the 2D screens.

Thing is, the movie itself, is obviously not good, but it seems it's not all that bad. According to the public in some review sites, anyway:

IMDB: 7,3 out of 10
Boxofficemojo: C+
Rotten Tomatoes: 4,5 out of 10

I haven't seen it (nor do I plan to) and I'm not defending it, just saying that there are plenty of movies with worse ratings and better grosses. I.e. the Jonas bros grossed around $20m and received 1,3 out of 10, a "D" in boxofficemojo and 3,4 out of 10 in tomatoes.

Obviously the film wasn't for everyone and the distributor decided to cut losses and not spend more money on it.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-07-2009, 07:17 AM:

Based on word from the showest screening it was, in fact, horrible. I had many reports of people walking out after 15-20 minutes.