Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fox is making life difficult for non 3D theatres

This is topic Fox is making life difficult for non 3D theatres 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=002234

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-23-2009, 12:30 AM:

We received rated one-sheets for Ice Age 3 last week that say "In Digital 3D" in big letters, but no language along the lines of "select theatres".

This really pisses me off when you consider it's probably going to open in 3500+ theatres and only 1500 or so will have 3D.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-23-2009, 12:42 AM:

What happens when you call where you get your one-sheets if there is a different version that would include the clause?

For this almost look like a pre-release one-sheet.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-23-2009, 12:45 AM:

When I asked my exhibitor relations rep for one without 3D, she said they all have 3D.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 06-23-2009, 01:52 AM:

This doesn't surprise me since this Fox's first digital 3D feature. When they get enough complaints from other theatres who are getting yelled at by their customers for false advertising, they'll design a new one leaving off the 3D.

We had a similar situation with another 3D film (Journey to the Center of the Earth?) and we just covered up the 3D part on the poster. Unfortunately in this case it will look really tacky, but it can be done with black poster board cut and taped over the "In Digital 3D". I would then send a pic to your rep showing just how bad it looks.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-23-2009, 01:57 AM:

Simply don't put up the poster if you don't have 3D. If Fox asks why it isn't up, tell them.

OFF TOPIC: How many Ice Age movies are there? I thought this was the second one.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-23-2009, 02:39 AM:

Joe, this is the third Ice Age movie. The second was subtitled "The Melt Down" and it came out March 31, 2006.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-23-2009, 03:41 AM:

Fox is one of the big pushers for 3D, since they want the number of 3D theatres up for their Avatar movie by year's end.

But I guess they don't wannit hard enough to pay good VPF to independents.

Oh well. Whatever works for them. Kodak and Fuji must be happy they are so closed-minded.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-23-2009, 07:07 AM:

Photoshop a "2" of the right size and place that over the "3" and thus it will acurately state in "2-D"

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-23-2009, 10:22 AM:

So why on earth don't you just put in 3-D and get it over with? It WILL pay for itself unless you wait till every other theater in your town has one...

Mark

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-23-2009, 10:48 AM:

It's been pretty obvious that studios are giving preference
to promoting their 3D products in print and TV advertising.

But several weeks ago, I noticed another trend in 3D Marketing.

It's been common practice at the end of a standard 35mm "flat"
trailer advertising a 3D feature to include a phrase worded
something like this: ""3D IN SELECTED THEATERS" "

But have you noticed that phrase has been turned around
at the end of the current "Final Destination" 35mm trailer?

I wonder if all future ads for 3D pix will use this syntax?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-23-2009, 02:14 PM:

I either fold-under the 3-D section of onesheets (unless they are in frames) or I use black or white tape to cover the 3-D, depending on which looks better.

If a trailer mentions 3-D I do my best to cut out the offending part. Sometimes this takes some experimenting and granted, it makes the trailer sound/look bad but I don't care. The movie needs to be advertised and I'll be damned if I'm going to put "3-D" on the screen and then not show it that way.

I've concluded that there's no way 3-D would ever pay for itself in a small town single screen. Think about it: How many 3-D movies are there in a year? A dozen? And they are not all going to be huge hits (we already have skipped playing at least half of those films, such as "Fly Me To The Moon"). So you're down to six. If we gross $5,000 for each of those movies, we would pay about $2850 for each in film rental. Leaving $2150, which multiplied by six movies = $12,900. When you deduct all of the normal expenses out of that, and consider that the gross estimate above mentioned is pretty generous, there's no way in the world to make a monthly payment on $40,000 worth of 3-D gear on top of $80,000 worth of digital equipment.

Of course all of this goes out the window if the "VPF" deals ever kick in, but it's looking more and more like the small towns are going to get the giant shaft on that one. And I'm not considering concession profits here either, but that's going to stay the same as it is anyway, 3-D movie or not. There's also the fact that SOME people will not attend 3-D movies. Maybe they're a minority but they do exist.

I can make digital work in our particular business model and we hope to take that step in the next year or two, but no matter how I crunch the numbers, 3-D just doesn't add up. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-23-2009, 03:18 PM:

Simple answer: you're not wrong.

The "pie" gets split, but it does not get bigger. Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-23-2009, 03:25 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So why on earth don't you just put in 3-D and get it over with? It WILL pay for itself unless you wait till every other theater in your town has one...

Mark

Could you be any more of a shill for the products you sell and install? I think not!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-23-2009, 04:22 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So why on earth don't you just put in 3-D and get it over with? It WILL pay for itself unless you wait till every other theater in your town has one...

Are you going to spot us the $150,000 per location to add a 3D screen. As others have mentioned, until the studios come up with a VPF agreement for independents it's difficult to justify the expense. Unless it creates a real cost savings somewhere, it's just a huge expense. Even calculating the saving on print handling doesn't add up because often the person who is building up/breaking down is doing so within the scope of a regular shift so they aren't getting extra hours.

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 06-29-2009, 11:28 AM:

It doesn't cost anywhere near $150,000 anymore. Get a quote done and you will be surprised.

Chase

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 06-29-2009, 12:20 PM:

Maybe not Chase but it still a fuck of a lot more money than a good 35mm setup. [Roll Eyes]

Remember most indie and single screens are barely making the house nut, so where's the upside to adding another lease/purchase payment to that? And for the tiny returns that Mike mentioned.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-29-2009, 01:32 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
so where's the upside to adding another lease/purchase payment to that? And for the tiny returns that Mike mentioned.

..just to say "we got one to quiet down the masses that wants to see the magic"...and then, the masses complain on paying more at the gate on something that they wanted in the first place.

A owner of an "indie" house that I worked at many moons ago replied back to me on an idea that I brought up for better projectionist conditions (which I've long forgotten what is was..and he really liked it..), and he simply told me, "If it increases my tix sales on a daily basis,then we can do it. Otherwise, there is no justice in going through with this idea."

Fully agree: tiny returns - returns to head back to film,or be smart to remain as film handlers...

-Monte

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2009, 01:34 PM:

quote: Chase Taylor
It doesn't cost anywhere near $150,000 anymore.

I suppose used stuff will start turning up as various companies upgrade. I'm not too excited about that prospect though....who wants to buy something used that's outmoded? How's the market for used computers, for example?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-29-2009, 01:39 PM:

Remember the Edsels ... and the very ugly Pontiac Aztek ...?

Yep, Mike - stay with what you got since you're already ahead in the game.

-Monte

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-30-2009, 02:53 AM:

The Ice Age trailers end with a mention of 3D in selected theatres. That sux, but not as much as Disney's "G-Force" trailer, which has TWO separate graphics and an announcer pushing "Disney Digital 3D" in the audio... impossible to cut without butchering the whole trailer.

Aside from being totally offended by the practice, I find it amusing that these companys seem to need US to advertise their 3D installs. You'd think they'd be so wonderful they'd could stand on their own feet.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2009, 03:46 AM:

Don't play that trailer. Simple.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-30-2009, 03:59 AM:

What Joe is trying to say is "Don't use your BEST and CHEAPEST form of advertising to promote a movie you'll likely be playing; instead 'Stand up to THE MAN with a meaningless gesture of refusing to market a movie that will likely hurt you more than the distributer"

I certainly agree that the emphasis on 3D would really suck if you aren't equipped for that, but simply telling people to stop complaining and not market the film is pretty lame too.

Of course to me G-Fore looks completely retarded and I'm betting on it bombing at the box office. What do I know though, I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-30-2009, 01:05 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

Yah... me too.

Fox's TV trailers have two 3D plugs... the first does not say digital, just 3D... even more misleading, since that kind of implies that everyone will see it that way... and you know we'll get a few that only heard it the first time.

Somebody mentioned running across a couple of customers who had brought their own anaglyph glasses to a 2D film, and were impressed with the "effect". Something to consider here?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 06-30-2009, 02:44 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
I certainly agree that the emphasis on 3D would really suck if you aren't equipped for that, but simply telling people to stop complaining and not market the film is pretty lame too.

I don't think it will make a difference. The non-3D locations I know of are down, while the 3D locations are up. I know of at least one manager who has told me he has had to give numerous refunds to people who went in thinking it the movie of their choice was in 3D, and it turned out to be flat.

If you advertise something on even a semi-regular level, you have to deliver, otherwise it can seriously hurt your reputation in the long run.

quote: Dustin Mitchell
Of course to me G-Fore looks completely retarded and I'm betting on it bombing at the box office. What do I know though, I thought Beverley Hills Chihuahua was going to bomb too and that actually did quite decent.

G-FORCE won't bomb. Considering the low number of kids films out right now, I predict that it will do phenomenal business. One only had to sit in the screenings of UP and get a taste of what the kiddies thought of the trailer.

Now, on an artistic level, will it suck donkey balls? I leave that to the critics...

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-30-2009, 03:22 PM:

3-D won't increase overall ticket sales, the same number of people will come to the movie, 3D may take the larger percentage if it is offered both ways. How many tickets will it take at the 50% extra charge for 3D to pay for it? How long will it be before customers get pissed at paying the extra charge and balk.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2009, 04:07 PM:

You think the gesture is "meaningless", Dustin? I know some people who don't play trailers just because the letterboxing bars printed on them make them look out of frame, or make it look as if the xenon is unfocused. Are those people idiots, too? I would never advocate not complaining.

I would simply contact the distributor ask ask for trailers that don't so blatantly promote technology I don't have, telling that I will not run the current trailer. Having it say "in 3D" at the end is fine since it usually has all of the digital sound logos as well. But the trailer makes it sounds like it is ONLY offered in 3D.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2009, 05:59 PM:

Yeah but Joe, they DON'T MAKE trailers that don't say 3-D because 3-D is where THEY make the most money. It's as $imple as that.

quote: Joe Redifer
You think the gesture is "meaningless", Dustin? I know some people who don't play trailers just because the letterboxing bars printed on them make them look out of frame, or make it look as if the xenon is unfocused. Are those people idiots, too?

Well, yes. Intentionally not advertising something you're going to play simply because the trailer meets only 99% of your high standards is just costing you money, NOT increasing your standing as a provider of a splendid moviegoing experience. Nobody is going to judge your presentation by what the trailers look like. The feature film is what they will remember.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2009, 02:26 AM:

Uh oh. You just called Brad an idiot!

quote: Mike Blakesley
Nobody is going to judge your presentation by what the trailers look like.

I understand your point, but does this mean it is OK for trailers to be dirty as hell and scratched? After all, it is the feature that they will remember. Why play trailers at all if they won't be remembered. [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-01-2009, 02:36 AM:

I wonder about this - seeing trailers not scratched or whatever, yet the assembly of them is what bug me: they come to the fadeout in the credits then "wham!" - ugly clear or opaque splice and right into the green of the next trailer, plus the thing hops real bad due to a sloppily made splice!

Yet, 99.99% of the people I talked to about the showing never made any comment on that particular theatre's trailer assembly, presentation or condition - just how the movie was...good or bad.

It's like trailer time is additional snakbar time - they know how long the paks are and that buys them that extra time to either be late or standing in snakbar lines..

-Monte

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-01-2009, 08:47 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
As others have mentioned, until the studios come up with a VPF agreement for independents it's difficult to justify the expense. Unless it creates a real cost savings somewhere, it's just a huge expense.

Sheesh... get your own loan or lease... 150 grand isn't the end of the world! I've even had customers in small farming towns in Idaho install two digital systems. As Louis says the pie is split differently... this is absolutely true and alot more of that pie can be yours if you think smart and think smartly ahead of your nearest competition!!! The system would pay for itself in a couple of years... Your county is large enough to support something like this... I checked!

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-01-2009, 08:54 AM:

quote:
150 grand isn't the end of the world!

Isn't that amount a bit high for a 3D screen. Projector and server should be in the $60k's, silver screen a few grand. If you choose Real-D there's no more up front cost. Aren't the reusable glasses systems only around 20k? A single 3D screen unless it is HUGE and needs dual projectors should certainly be under $100k.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2009, 05:43 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
A single 3D screen unless it is HUGE and needs dual projectors should certainly be under $100k.

As a guy who just recently got a digital quote, I can state the answer to that: Nope.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-01-2009, 07:02 PM:

You serious you can't do a medium-sized 2K+silver screen (say Real D was "free") for (well) under $100k? [Confused]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-01-2009, 07:50 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
As a guy who just recently got a digital quote, I can state the answer to that: Nope.

To risk a little thread drift, what equipment package were you quoted. I can't give the exact price on a public forum but we've done 3 digital screens over the past few months with Christie CP2000-ZX projectors, doremi servers and Real-D in the $70,000 range per screen including installation. The silver screen was additional and cost depends on screen size. Obviously there's more cost if you go with one of the reusable glasses systems. The Dolby 3D system was an operational nightmare for us so we changed to using Real-D but in your single screen location you won't have the issues with collecting glasses. Feel free to email me if you want the contact information of the company that sold us the system.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2009, 10:20 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
You serious you can't do a medium-sized 2K+silver screen (say Real D was "free")

Well why would you say "real D was free" when it is NOT free.

Without 3-D our quote was quite a bit under $100k, with 3-D quite a bit over. I'm not going to put specifics up here though.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-01-2009, 11:51 PM:

Oh, I see Mike. That makes more sense.

Yeah, no need to talk about specific, just general amounts is enough for the conversation.

For a moment I thought it was normal to find "impossible" to go (much) below $100k on ANY 3D installation, including Real-D, which may require very little/non "upfront and installation" cost (thus my comment that it was "free").

So I guess we can say that a non-3D 2K digital screen could be had for around $80k and adding an "upfront" fully-owned 3D system and new (high gain) screen to that would normally trip it over the 100k barrier.