Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bottleneck coming for 3D films

This is topic Bottleneck coming for 3D films 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=002319

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 02-07-2010, 11:14 AM:

Guess we all knew this would happen sooner or later. Warner Bros. has announced an April 2 release for it's 3D Clash of the Titans. This spells trouble for exhibitors, according to an article published on The Wrap.

http://www.thewrap.com/
February 04, 2010, 6:14PM PST
Category: MOVIES
By: Daniel Frankel and Dominic Patten -
Clash of the 3D Titans: a War Over Screens

It's a problem that's been looming for many months: 3D titles surging at a pace that was sure to outrun the number of screens available to exhibit them.

Now, Warner's decision to add the 3D conversion of "Clash of the Titans" to the mix appears to have finally jammed the works.

“We will not have enough 3D screens in March and April to accommodate these pictures,” John Fithian, president and CEO of the National Association of Theater Owners, told TheWrap. “Everyone’s not going to be happy.”

When “Titans” debuts April 2, three 3D films will already reside in a North American theatrical marketplace that currently only has about 3,500 digital 3D screens, with about 150 being added each month.

Paramount/DreamWorks is set to open “How to Train Your Dragon” March 26. Disney’s Tim Burton-directed “Alice in Wonderland” debuts March 5. And even Fox’s “Avatar” could still be factor after more than three months in theaters.

Fithian estimates that there might be 4,000 digital 3D theater rooms available by mid-March, but “even then it’s going to be a battle for screens.”

“I don’t think there’s enough room for two 3D releases to go full-bore at the same time, let alone two and a half,” added one studio distribution executive.

For its part, Warners is aware of the potential bottleneck, but is hopeful that conditions will improve in time for the April 2 "Titans" premiere.

“We all wish there were more screens available in the marketplace,” said Warner distribution president Dan Fellman, noting that he expects “Titans” to be fully converted into 3D and widely distributed into digitally enabled theaters for its debut. “Exhibition is doing what it can to improve the situation by the time we open. But until we get past this little bump in the road, everybody will probably end up with a few less (3D) screens than they would like.”

("Titans" isn't just creating havoc in the 3D world: As part of Warner's decision to convert the movie into the 3D format, the studio bumped the film's release back a week to April 2, prompting rival studios to do plenty of juggling of their own. MGM, for example, moved its comedy "Hot Tub Time Machine" out of the April 2 slot. CBS Films, meanwhile, pushed its Jennifer Lopez romantic comedy "The Back-Up Plan" back a week to April 23.)
Following Warner’s announcement that it was going to throw “Titans” into a crowded 3D market, there has been speculation among competitors that Warner will widely utilize Technicolor’s Film Solution, a technology that would enable non-digital movie houses to show “Clash” in 3D via standard celluloid.

Fellman, however, negated any claims that “Clash” will utilize this inferior analog technology, telling TheWrap that “Technicolor Film Solution is not a big part of our plan. RealD (digital 3D technology) is going to be our primary focus."

The exhibition industry has a stated goal of having somewhere between 7,000-8,000 digital 3D screens available in North America by the end of the year, a benchmark Fithian called “aggressive.”

Certainly, the demand for these venues will only intensify, with nearly 20 3D films already on the 2010 3D calendar before Warner’s conversion announcement, which also added “Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore,” “Guardians of Ga’Hoole” and “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1” onto the year’s 3D docket.

How did the exhibition industry get behind on 3D? Blame the credit crisis, Fithian said.

Two years ago, exhibitors laid out a long-term 3D installation plan to meet what everyone saw as a growing demand. Then the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit Wall Street.

“In September 2008, the technical standards of 3D were coming together and we were primed for a rollout, and then the economy collapsed,” he explained. “Now, the credit markets have loosened up, but we’re still having to get very creative in out financing with exhibitors and vendors and we’re trying everything we can. The reality is we’re not where we want to be."

What a mess. Why isn't Fithian behind exhibitors pushing for the least expensive method to get 3D quickly, be it digital or Technicolor 3D? Instead he's moaning about the fact that it's "not where we want to be."

Well, hello John- you are supposed to represent the exhibitors.

Seems that Fithian is standing by sitting on his hands while exhibitors face a real mess come the first week of April. If you only have one digital screen for 3D, you have to lose Avatar and book Disney's Alice in Wonderland beginning March 5th. Then Paramount comes out with How To Train Your Dragon on March 26th.

So, will Disney allow you to end the run after 3 weeks?

To add to the problem, I understand that Paramount will not give theatres a Technicolor 35MM 3D print to a complex that already has a digital screen, so if you race out to add a Technicolor screen, that isn't going to solve your problem.

Then, look at the WB comment that any claims that “Clash” will utilize this analog technology, telling TheWrap that “Technicolor Film Solution is not a big part of our plan. RealD (digital 3D technology) is going to be our primary focus."

Holy smoke! What does that do to Technicolor's business plan, and what does that do to theatre owners who were hoping to bridge the gap to digital by utilizing Technicolor's technology? [Eek!]

Even if you have two digital 3D screens, it doesn't completely solve the bottleneck. You have to wonder if these moves have been made to drag exhibitors kicking and screaming into the 3D digital age? Of course, who is going to pay, the studios? Do you think so? BTW, what ever happened to virtual print fees??

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-07-2010, 11:57 AM:

Maybe instead of grabbing all of their money in the first weekend, the studios could return to the days of platform releases and slow, sustained rollouts.

Of course, that would require good reviews, good word of mouth, paying attention for a few weeks and maybe delaying the DVD release.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 02-07-2010, 12:21 PM:

quote:
Fellman, however, negated any claims that â€œClashâ€ will utilize this inferior analog technology, telling TheWrap that â€œTechnicolor Film Solution is not a big part of our plan. RealD (digital 3D technology) is going to be our primary focus."

"..inferior analog technology", eh? I have to keep reminding myself that Digital = PERFECT, Analogue = [bs]

Someone should tell these dicks that the image ceases to be in the digital domain as soon as it emerges from the light engine and is analogue from there to the eye- but that's just splitting hairs.

These guys lost credibility right there by showing bias towards digital 3D. I understand that there are more opinions in the world than mine- but I do wish that minions like these would stop parroting ad copy and leave the qualitative decision making to the reader.

Now, that whole gist of the story was to bring to light the potential bottleneck brought about by Warner's decision to release Clash at a time when 3D screens are at a premium. That's all fine and dandy, but to rubbish a potential solution to the very problem these guys are crowing about smacks of biased, confused reporting at best.

Aside from that, this was a problem that was bound to happen, particularly with the success of Avatar, and it may come back to bite Warner on the arse especially if they publicly announce that they will push Real 3D over the cheaper Tech solution.

Have Warner looked at the success of Avatar and gotten "Digital Cajones" in the hope of pressuring exhibs to speed up the digi conversion? That's my take on it but I may be wrong.

Warners need to remember that the recession is still hitting many exhibs hard- and to pressure the cinemas to convert quicker is bound to make many drop the Warner offering in favour of others that will be made available in the "..inferior analog technology"

....and that may well lead to the first serious 3D flop.

When that happens then the sheen on the 3D diamond will start to tarnish, and as history has shown time and again that good stories play just as well in 2 dimensions as in 3, and that effects for effects sake gets boring very quickly indeed.

Hands up who has dusty SpaceVision, Paramount 3D, StereoVision, lying around somewhere.

As a participant in the Cinema Exhibition industry, I sometimes get very cynical and downright pissed off that the studios can use my theatre, my equipment, my staff and my love of the industry as a pawn in their quest for the $. And if they continue to treat the exhibitor with the contempt demonstrated by Warners, then it will come as no surprise that they will experience a backlash.

This is going to be watched VERY closely by many of my colleagues with a close eye.

Rant over.

Please turn off the lights as you leave the lecture theatre.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2010, 12:36 PM:

quote: Warner distribution president Dan Fellman
Then, look at the WB comment that any claims that “Clash” will utilize this analog technology, telling TheWrap that “Technicolor Film Solution is not a big part of our plan. RealD (digital 3D technology) is going to be our primary focus."

quote: Ian Parfrey

These guys lost credibility right there by showing bias towards digital 3D.

They lost it by showing bias to Read D. If it was really about quality, they would be pushing Dolby's system which is superior.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-07-2010, 01:40 PM:

Since I'm completely sick of all this talk about 3-D being the savior of the industry (which doesn't need saving), I am really excited for the first 3-D flop, whatever it might be.

I'm sort of surprised that there is such giddy excitement over "Clash of the Titans." It looks like a stinker to me (I remember the first one did nothing here), but then so did "Avatar," so what do I know?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-07-2010, 01:48 PM:

Actually with all but two studios signed up for Technicolor's 3-D film based system I believe that will by the end of the year out number the digital installs in North America. It is also far ssuperior to ANY of the Digital based 3-D systems. Much brighter levels can be obtained while the color remains properly saturated. It is also the least expensive route to go and so will win big time.

Mark

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-07-2010, 02:08 PM:

Problem solved if the Film Distributors all come together with the financing to upgrade to 3D theaters. Then the owners pay that back.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-07-2010, 02:53 PM:

There is zero chance of Spain significantly increasing the number of digital 3D screen in time for all this. There are about 4000 screens in the country and less than 235, including Imax, are 3D.

No way in hell any significant number of them (or over 10, for that matter) are adding a second digital (much less digital 3D) unless studios kick back the cost of the 35mm print or the equipment becomes super-good and super-cheap all of the sudden through some miracle.

I'll be installing at least one Tech3D, probably 2 as soon as they become available here. If we can't get prints, well, we don't have to pay anything to Tech anyway.

Refusing to print o/u 35mm prints to theaters with a digital screen is just low. Their plan has always been to force digital convertion through 3D, but that's backfiring as soon as theaters starting to convert just one screen exclusively for 3D with 35mm on the side and asking for 35mm prints anyway to move the film to smaller houses and to also offer 2D shows.

There have been "plenty" of 3D flops already. Films like Scar 3D, Battle for Planet Earth or the Jonas Bros. were flops. Fly me to the moon wasn't that hot either. Some 3D films went straight to DVD, like Dark Country.

3D has been "helped" by stuff like intense marketing (like Superbowl Monsters vs Aliens), likable movies (children's cartoons) that would've done just as well in 2D, and the novelty factor. The novelty will wear off soon, and marketing will someday return to the usual level. Then we'll see 3D films performing close to the level of any other film IN SPITE OF the 3D surcharge.

You are only forced to offer 3D if nearby competition has it. Otherwise, you can sit and wait forever on 35mm. And now with Tech3D, some don't even have to feel left out of the 3D stuff.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-07-2010, 08:34 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
There have been "plenty" of 3D flops already. Films like Scar 3D, Battle for Planet Earth or the Jonas Bros. were flops.

Sure they were flops, but I'm talking about high profile flops. Nobody gave a crap about those movies, except maybe the people in them. (Maybe.)

quote: Tom Petrov
Then the owners pay that back.

Why should the owners pay it back when it's the distribs that are saving all of the money?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-07-2010, 09:50 PM:

Tech 3D is legitimately excellent. I have seen and set it up. The potential for super brightness is there if exact parameters are followed.

My concern is that it will attract a few bottom-feeders since it is priced so low. Louis

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-07-2010, 10:47 PM:

Louis, my concern is that the stupid asses who are allegedly running this industry are gonna kill it off completely by not settling on ONE standard for 3-D (which, BTW, is NOT a magic pill to cure the typical dreck cranked out by H-Wood). 3-D was tried years ago and rightfully died a quick death as the public realized it was what it was, a cheap, cheesy gimmick, which did NOTHING to improve on a lousy story.

Just look at how difficult D-Cinema is, with multiple formats of the SAME film, continual breakdowns due to equipment or media, the circus to get the keys to the content, and the ridiculous cost of equipment, etc. Another example of how dumb studios really are, pushing this crap when a perfectly viable, far less expensive technology exists and has been proven over literally a hundred-plus years.

The bottom feeders you refer to who are smart enough to help keep film equipment viable are the ones who will ultimately survive in this industry.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-08-2010, 09:29 AM:

Tony: you are correct.

In the 1950s the "Flo Ziegfields" bet the farm on wonderful new technology and were swept away by financial problems. The "survivors" (cheapskates) did survive and, later, their kids started the multi-screen frenzy of the 1970s.

The lesson of the industry is that we are depending on the cheapskates for our long-term survival. Louis

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-08-2010, 09:57 AM:

Here is the problem...you still have idiots out there that will screw up the 3-D 35mm prints and cause everyone who sees these shows a bad presentation. Scratched 3-D prints really look terrible when projected. Hollywood needs to plan accordingly until there are enough screens to fill the bills.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 02-08-2010, 10:14 AM:

We are going to be getting 2 new Real D Projectors eventually, and 4 silver screens.... They are going to have the projectionists move the projectors around depending on of they have good counts or not. Granted I have had a coat hanger holding a change over open in a pro 35 for 6 months and most of our theater's have one amplifier.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-08-2010, 11:41 AM:

quote: Michael Voiland
2 new Real D Projectors eventually, and 4 silver screens.... They are going to have the projectionists move the projectors around depending on of they have good counts or not

The screens better be the same size/distance. If you need to change lenses, better to have regular RealD, cause the XL's would have to be re-aligned. And remember those royalties, the $10k installation cost and keep your fingers crossed for the glasses to keep coming "free".

Now seriously. 35mm 3-D indeed needs to be done by humans. Monkeys will manage to screw it up much faster than digital. Hopefully technicolor will do all it can to provide educational material for projectionists, treat the 3D prints with "extra care" when it comes to lab-splices, color consistency, etc, etc.

Those who have seen it, has Technicolor done anything to make the splicing and framing "monkey proof"?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-08-2010, 11:48 AM:

As one who runs an arthouse, the whole 3D is kinda pointless to me. Except, sooner or later there will be an ART 3D movie or someone is going to want to do a 3D fest.

What is the Technicolor policy on second run/rep? Still $2k a print? Still no renting of the lenses?

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 02-08-2010, 04:04 PM:

I'm one of the lucky projectionists who will probably end up moving the projectors around. And the screen sizes will not be same that i know. Also they are going to keep the 35mm equipment in place and cut bigger portholes in the walls. I have a feeling this is going to be an epic failure on insurmountable proportions. Hopefully someone will figure out 3d on 35mm film soon. (with 1 projector)

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-08-2010, 04:32 PM:

And now the story has migrated to NPR. Going viral after that [evil]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-08-2010, 05:08 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
treat the 3D prints with "extra care"

Yeah...right. [Roll Eyes]

quote: Michael Voiland
Hopefully someone will figure out 3d on 35mm film soon. (with 1 projector)

Read the Technicolor thread...it's done.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 02-08-2010, 09:48 PM:

And use it.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-11-2010, 09:26 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
As one who runs an arthouse, the whole 3D is kinda pointless to me. Except, sooner or later there will be an ART 3D movie or someone is going to want to do a 3D fest.

What is the Technicolor policy on second run/rep? Still $2k a print? Still no renting of the lenses?

I have to agree 100%, as an arthouse guy, I just sit on the sidelines and watch, however I've worked in a decently busy 13-plex before with a Digital Projector (and RealD) So i know how hard these companies are pushing digital/digital 3D