quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) a "classic"?

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

I suspect the real reason is that in most locations, with a few exceptions in major cities, a "classic" film will not draw more than 75 to 100 paying customers.

Everyone says that they would like to see their favorite classics on the big screen again, but when it comes to putting their cold hard cash down at the boxoffice, it seem that most are nowhere to be found.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

I can't speak to the Denver market, but here in suburban New Jersey, those venues that regularly run classic films rarely draw more than 100 paying customers.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Definately booking restrictions. The exhibitor has signed a contract to play it in X sized auditorium for X number of weeks.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

Nonetheless, the number of people who make their decisions based on screen size is so small it is probably beyond measuring.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

Very little in the film distribution business makes "sense."

---

This, I buy.

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

You just have to deal with it.

---

quote: Helmut Maripuu

---

Just filling out the form, usually the movie will come up in the program.

---

 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-16-2019, 01:09 PM:
 
Studios don't dictate house placement, Mark. The last film that was done with was Star Wars: The Last Jedi. This phenomenon can be chalked up to several things: lazy managers, lazy film buyers, or sometimes, in the case of Fathom Events, the equipment necessary to run the show is only present on a couple of screens in the building. The studios care only about a "full schedule" and if you do proper "three-dimensional" programming to maximize your building's output, it doesn't matter what auditorium a particular show runs in.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-16-2019, 01:14 PM:
 
I do mind the auditorium something is played in. Especially a classic movie revival has no business being screened at screen 47 in a multiplex, then I rather watch it at home, thank you.

It doesn't need to play in the biggest auditorium either, but it does need to be a decent sized room, preferably something that still looks like a proper cinema.

Also, going to the movies and sitting in an empty theater might be fun now and then, especially if you're not working in the industry and can have that perk essentially as often as you want, but there is actually something special when seeing a movie as part as a larger audience.

I can still remember sell out or near sell outs for reruns of classics and semi-classics (where-ever you draw the line) like Brazil, The Big Lebowski, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, The Shawshank Redemption, The Wall, The Right Stuff, 2001, Ben-Hur and a lot more. Those are really fun to watch, especially because you are there with other people that come there either for the experience or specially for that movie.

But even for such events, you need to build an audience, you can't just randomly schedule a classic movie in your otherwise first-run schedule and think a whole bunch of people will show up. It needs time, so people actually start to watch your programming and decide to free up their busy schedule to come to you.

The problem is, it requires some dedication, a human touch, somebody curating a program, know how to advertise it and build a bit of cult status around it, so you get a regular following. Then this sort of thing can actually make money. But this is not something you can expect from a mega-chain like AMC. Too much effort for the potential gain...

And yes, there are often booking restrictions, not so much fitting in this one show into the existing schedule, but getting an acceptable deal (as in the rental costs and permission) from the studio/distributor to actually be allowed to screen that particular movie isn't always easy... (And then there's that other thing: Getting a DCP that works or... imagine, even an actual film print...) Been there, done that. And since Fox is now Disney, stuff hasn't really gotten better in that regard.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-16-2019, 03:44 PM:
 

quote: Geoff Jones

---

I can't believe they spend all that money for a customer segment so small it is probably beyond measuring.

---

quote:

---

I'd go so far to say that theaters shouldn't even HAVE those smaller screens. Some of them are downright embarrassing. You might as well tell the patrons that they have crappy taste in movies to see something that they put on those screens. I have to laugh when the studios advertise something as "See it on the big screen!"

---

quote:

---

Definitely booking restrictions. The exhibitor has signed a contract to play it in X sized auditorium for X number of weeks.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, no one who wants to see the classic in a theater on a big screen isn't going to not go because it's on a smaller screen;

---

I guess I am "No One." I make this decision frequently. I skipped MM:FR. I own it on Blu-Ray and can watch it on a 125" 2.4:1 screen at home. Over the next several weeks, Drafthouse Westminster is showing Creepshow, Stand By Me, and Pulp Fiction. I'd love to revisit those films (and introduce my teen to them) in the theater, but it isn't worth it to me to see them on a screen that isn't (perceptively) much bigger than what I have at home. Hell, I wanted to revisit It: Chapter One before Chapter Two comes out, and several theaters showed it recently, but on their smaller screens, so yup, I opted to watch it at home.

It's actually a pretty silly statement. The same people who are likely to want to see classics in theaters are the exact same people who are likely to have big home theaters. Cinemas need to give them a reason to bother. Putting classics off in the corner isn't enough.

Signed,
A Man Has No Name
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 08-17-2019, 08:37 PM:
 
That's the thing; even the smaller screens as at the Century Boulder are over twenty feet as opposed to 125".

For me the bigger issue about a venue like the aforementioned Century are the light grey blacks; it is always a downer when you have better contrast at home.

On the other hand, seeing The Sound of Music a couple decades ago at the Regal Continental on their big (now RPX) screen was completely worth it despite it being a beat-up 35mm print.
 

---

Posted by Brent Barnhart (Member # 10321) on 08-17-2019, 11:45 PM:
 
I believe it was an “old rule” that once a movie was booked in Aud. X it was intended to remain in that Auditorium for the duration of that booking. However, it appeared as though the studios understood and either looked the other way or adapted. After all, Everyone was moving product and by right they should. Premium houses however are separate from the “regular” houses. For example, recently the mouse fought with the globe over having their product in the PF rooms.
A fight like that doesn’t leave room (at least in peak season) for a Mad Max, but I can agree with the argument that a large room in said “regular” rooms would be helpful.
I do, however contrary to OPs data agree that retro titles do not draw. Unless it’s free. Would putting it in a larger room do it? Maybe, maybe not. But it would certainly reward those who came for it
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-18-2019, 04:28 PM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

you need to build an audience, you can't just randomly schedule a classic movie in your otherwise first-run schedule and think a whole bunch of people will show up. It needs time, so people actually start to watch your programming and decide to free up their busy schedule to come to you.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

Everyone says that they would like to see their favorite classics on the big screen again, but when it comes to putting their cold hard cash down at the boxoffice, it seem that most are nowhere to be found.

---

So true. Reminds me of an argument I heard between the owner of a single screen in Brooklyn who had turned to playing porn as a way to survive. He was surrounded by a dozen or so protesters who wanted to stop him from playing "smut." The theatre never even put titles on the marquee, just "ADULT CINEMA" is all it said. That wasn't good enuf for them. They insisted he stop running the porno altogether. Why couldn't he run G and PG titles. His answer was, "Because I did run G and PG titles and you people never showed up; where where you when I was about to go bankrupt?" So the cry of "Why can't you run classics?" could easily be met with, "You buy your tickets up front and I'll show whatever you want." Actually we did a little of that with our subscription system. Buy the subscription booklet with vouchers and that gives you a discount and it gives us operating cashflow.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-09-2019, 01:02 PM:
 
Here is a visual representation of the point I'm trying to make.

A local theater showed Pulp Fiction last night on a small screen (constant width, I think) while IT played on their big 60' screen.

These seating charts were captured less than an hour before each show started. (I'll save you some time counting: PF = 68 tickets, IT = 50 tickets.)

1. How many people looked at the chart for Pulp Fiction and decided the screen was too small to be worth the time or money? (I know of 2.)

2. How many people looked at the chart in the days leading up to the screening and decided not to attend because the seats they prefer were already taken?

3. How many people attended that screening and said "That was fun, but it wasn't really that much better than seeing it at home" and how many of them will skip the next classics showing?

4. How much more money could the theater make if it ran classics in the big screen?


___________________________________(NOT TO SCALE)___________________________________

Note: This is not a one-off - it's typical. Classics almost always sell more seats than the current release in the big screen.
Note2: "Classics" for the purpose of this discussion = any title not in current release that people would like to revisit.

Sorry to keep ranting about this, but it seems like such a missed opportunity. There's clearly a market demand that is not being met.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-09-2019, 02:04 PM:
 
How many looked at it and said "Good God, 'It Chapter Two' is 169 mins!" ? ;>

I imagine if this sort of thing was programmed at the local level by someone with the authority to make decisions, your argument would be valid. To Corporate Headquarters, it's just a rounding error.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2019, 11:25 AM:
 

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

I'd go so far to say that theaters shouldn't even HAVE those smaller screens. Some of them are downright embarrassing. You might as well tell the patrons that they have crappy taste in movies to see something that they put on those screens.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Note: This is not a one-off - it's typical. Classics almost always sell more seats than the current release in the big screen.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Note: This is not a one-off - it's typical. Classics almost always sell more seats than the current release in the big screen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I don't think that statement is scientific at all. At best it could only apply to specific niche theaters in giant city markets.

---

quote:

---

It looks like The Matrix played in 138 Dolby Cinema auditoriums from 8/30 through 9/5. Bravo to AMC for that. I hope the Chapel Hills location doesn't have red aisle lights shining on the screen like the AMC Dolby Cinema in Broomfield. :/

---

This is the first Dolby Cinema @ AMC auditorium I've visited that doesn't have the old AMC Prime-style Red LED lighting (including red lights in the speakers). Everything has gone blue, more like the Dolby Cinema screens in Europe. But there's no stealth fighter panels on the walls and ceiling. The surround speakers appear to be a different make and model as well. Previous AMC Prime/Dolby Cinema houses used (I think) Christie Vive surrounds. These might be QSC, but I don't know for certain.





The image of the seating area is a bit misleading. A couple or so rows of seats were out of the camera shot to the left. Still, the switch to recliners ate a lot of seats in this auditorium. On the bright side the screen is pretty big in relation to the seating area. And it's scope shaped. Most Dolby Cinema @ AMC screens I've visited have had the usual common width shaped screen with 'scope movies letter-boxed on them.

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Of course a re-release isn't going to sell as many tickets at a Tuesday Matinee as a big new release is going to sell on opening night. But I wonder if The Matrix sold more tickets than whatever was playing in the next biggest screen at the same time. I wonder if that was true for most showings of The Matrix that week.

---