Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Who Needs Theatres Anyway?

This is topic Who Needs Theatres Anyway? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004290

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 10-04-2005, 10:39 PM:

Who Needs Theaters, Anyway?

The major movie studios are stepping up their production of movies intended to go directly to the home video market, Home Media Retailing reported Monday. Universal Studios Home Entertainment president Craig Kornblau told the publication, "We have a $24 billion business that consumers absolutely love ... and yet there is very little content made only for this business." Many of the new features being produced for DVD release are being described as "franchises" -- essentially sequels to successful films. Last week, Universal launched "Universal DVD Originals" with Carlito's Way: Rise to Power, a sequel to 1993's Carlito's Way. On Dec. 27, the studio will release the DVD sequel American Pie: Band Camp, starring Eugene Levy. Sony plans to release Single White Female 2: The Psycho on Oct. 25 and 8MM2 on Nov. 22. New Line is planning sequels to 1994's 8 Seconds and last year's The Butterfly Effect. And Paramount Home Entertainment President Meagan Burrows told the publication that the studio is "in the process of developing a new [DVD] comedy label."

Well, it looks like not only do studios want to put projectionists out of a job, but they also want to put the entire business out of exsistance. This is horrible. Granted, some of the movie that have been coming out are perfect for DVD release as they aren't even worth the time to thread them. But American Pie: Band Camp? That might just something the theatres need to keep bringing in money, and a sequeal to The Butterfly Effect? That would be awesome. Both were good movies in their own genre. Looks like theatres are going to test the stand of time once again as someone attempts to put them out.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-04-2005, 11:22 PM:

Calm down dude. They are just doing what Disney has been doing (with success) for years: Putting out sequels that they know are inferior products on DVD rather than in theatres. This is not such a bad thing. I'd rather see movies that are nearly guaranteed to blow chunks go right to video -- it means we don't have to wast time on them.

American Pie: Band Camp? And Eugene Levy is the main star? Come on. You know it's going to suck. It's like Police Academy VII. (What is it with Eugene Levy anyway? He's everywhere these days.)

Butterfly Effect? It was a flop (well, at least, not much of a grosser.) It did better on video than in the theatres. So a video release makes sense.

8 Seconds? The people who want to see this piece of crap are always glued to TV screens anyway, so why bother with theatrical? And, it's guaranteed to suck too.

And so on.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 10-05-2005, 12:02 AM:

I agree that movies like this deserve to go straight to video. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power? I remember seeing a trailer for this in the theater earlier this year and laughed at all of the comments from others in the theater and Puff Daddy strutted through the trailer.

I do have to disagree on Butterfly Effect being a flop or low grosser. 58 Million on a 13 million-dollar budget is pretty profitable. A sequel would be a hit for that January-April / August-October lull.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2005, 12:30 AM:

What the movie cost to make isn't the yardstick in this case...it's what it grossed. If it'd been an art film or a documentary, then 58 would be great, but this was a high profile, highly promoted film and Ashton Kutcher was a hot item at the time...58 million is a middling performer at best. They were hoping for much more, I'm sure.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-05-2005, 12:42 AM:

We actually did quite well with it in a few locations. A lot better than some other crap that grossed twice as much.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-05-2005, 01:23 PM:

Well, porn's been straight-to-video for over 15 years now...

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 10-05-2005, 01:28 PM:

There's absoulutely nothing new about straight to video, lower budget sequels. It's been going on for well over a decade.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 10-05-2005, 03:28 PM:

Interestingly, they actually opened this "Carlito's Way" sequel as an "Exclusive Theatrical Engagement" in L.A. at a Landmark arthouse (Westside Pavilion) last Friday, several days after the video was released. this 4-plex normally shows the "artier" of arthouse pics, so the booking is doubly bizarre. Does this somehow give this release more "legitimacy"? I would have thought to do that, it should have opened at least before the video release.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2005, 06:14 PM:

Maybe they opened the show in that one theater so it could technically qualify for Oscar consideration (as if it will win any).

The Oscars do have a problem nominating anything that plays on TV before it plays in any movie theaters. One of the most irritating examples of how that policy can be bad was their snubbing of Linda Fiorentino's performance in "The Last Seduction." Many critics cited her performance as clearly the best of that year. But the movie played on HBO before getting a limited release in theaters later that year.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-2005, 08:33 PM:

Are direct-to-video movies even eligible for an Academy Award?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2005, 08:40 PM:

Not if they play on TV first.

There might be an exception in the documentary category.

(off topic - but as of this writing, the Chicago White Sox just beat the Boston Red Sox in Game 2 of their ALCS Division Series. The White Sox now lead 2 games to none)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-2005, 11:31 PM:

But what if they are never broadcast, only existing on DVD and LaserDisc?

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 10-05-2005, 11:39 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
What the movie cost to make isn't the yardstick in this case...it's what it grossed.

Which has always been stupid if you ask me. Right now any movie that grosses over 100 million, no matter what it costs to make and promote, is classified as a "Blockbuster". To me if a movie cost 200 million to make and only makes 100 million back, that movie is a bomb pure and simple. The yardstick SHOULD be cost vs gross. A real blockbuster should be any movie which more than doubles its cost. I would have no problem with a 5 million dollar art film being classified as a blockbuster for making 10 million in theaters.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2005, 11:44 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
But what if they are never broadcast, only existing on DVD and LaserDisc?

I don't know. Maybe only "Chained Heat," the awesome women in prison movie, will exist on DVD (if it's on DVD at this point; it was on Showtime in the 1980's when I was in high school and I loved it) -and thus be nominated for "Best Tits of All Time in a Women In Prison Movie" category. Sybil Danning rocks, I tell you. Well, at least she rocked at that time.
[thumbsup]

But the Academy feels unless it plays at LaMelle's (or whatever the art house du jour theater is in favor within Los Angeles) combined with them getting a VHS tape Fed-Ex-ed to them ('cuz lotsa Academy memberz probably haven't moved up to DVD yet) then IT DOES NOT QUALIFIEEEEEE!!!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2005, 11:45 PM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
The yardstick SHOULD be cost vs gross. A real blockbuster should be any movie which more than doubles its cost.

I agree with you. That's why I said, "in this case."

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-06-2005, 04:08 AM:

from thefreedictionary.com:

quote:
block·bust·er (blkbstr)
n.
1. Something, such as a film or book, that sustains widespread popularity and achieves enormous sales.

on the other hand, from oxford:

quote:
blockbuster

• noun informal a film or book that is a great commercial success.

so you're both right, and you're both wrong.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 10-06-2005, 07:55 AM:

I have thought for a long time that with ticket price inflation the cut off for "Blockbuster" status should move up to 150 or 200 million.

Of course, advertising executives wouldn't like that...

But there is no way that "Charlies Angels Full Throttle" is a blockbuster.