This is topic The Myth that DVD makes all the money 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=005502
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-18-2008, 09:57 AM:
I don't understand something. It is always said that the DVD release is so important because that's where the studios make all the money. This has led to the shorter DVD windows and even talk of "premium" video on demand (which is unclear when it would actually be released but sometime before the DVD release).
I decided to take a look at five recent successful movies from the winter season, I Am Legend, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Cloverfield, Enchanted, and Alvin and the Chipmunks.
Movie-------Domestic Gross--Int'l Gross--DVD Sales---Rentals
I am Legend---$256M------------$327M--------$108M------$50M
National Tr---$220M------------$237M--------$78M-------$16M
Cloverfield---$80M-------------$90M---------$26M-------$28M
Enchanted-----$128M------------$211M--------$75M-------$40M
Alvin/Chipm---$217M------------$142M--------$90M-------$38M
In all of these cases, the domestic gross was higher than the DVD sales and rental gross combined. I'm not sure what percentage of the DVD gross goes to the studios (I think the major rental chains are on a 50/50 type share). I assume they get a little higher percentage of the DVD sales.
My point here is that a large percentage of the income for a film comes from the theatrical release yet the studios almost seem intent on eventually eliminating theaters. I understand also that there are distribution costs (prints add up) but in a few years, once the VPFs expire, digital releases will cost very little to distribute.
If you ask me (and who am I), the studios should be trying to get theatrical grosses up. Even though the movies can be pirated while in theatrical release, the experience of a theater can't be pirated.
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-18-2008, 11:02 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
the experience of a theater can't be pirated
Which is why I don't think theatres will be going anywhere, even if, heaven forbid, the studios start releasing day-and-date. There might need to be an evolution for theatres though.
A large number of the movies I run at the theatre I'm working at now have been on DVD for some time, yet we still do fairly good business with them. We ran a full week of Across The Universe to heavy crowds 3 weeks after its video debut. We have earned a reputation for having a high quality experience (no ads, curtain, perfect picture and sound) at a reasonable price, and that has served us well.
The real danger is that theatres kill the experience by throwing 20 minutes of advertising, 6-8 trailers, and low quality presentation.
The bottom line is that people will always want to get out of the house and see a blockbuster on a huge screen with incredible sound, but even I would prefer to watch it in my home on DVD if the only theatre in town bombards me with ads and plays the movie out of focus in and in Dolby A.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 12:00 PM:
Alvin & the Chipmunks grossed $217 million in North America? Jeez. Didn't know it made that much. Get ready for 5 even more unbearable sequels to follow it!
quote: Lyle Romer
I don't understand something. It is always said that the DVD release is so important because that's where the studios make all the money.
It's where most movies finally start turning in a profit. Major studio films often cost well over $100 million to produce. Add another $30 to $60 million for the marketing. Although the studios get the lion's share of the box office take, they don't get all of it. In the end a major studio picture needs to do well at the box office just to cover its production and marketing costs.
Studios have pushed hard to make release windows more narrow because they fund most of their productions and marketing with borrowed money. The longer it takes for a movie to turn a profit equals more money they're paying out in interest.
Not only have the DVD release windows narrowed, but studios have also moved to release more of their major films in many countries simultaneously instead of staggering the openings in various nations over many weeks or months. Again, this has a lot to do with minimizing interest payments. Finance charges on $150 million or more can amount to a lot more than striking a lot of extra film prints for international markets (rather than shipping used American prints there).
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-18-2008, 12:33 PM:
I understand all that. The thing is, if the theatrical gross is drastically reduced, the DVD releases won't be turning a profit anymore. The reason the DVD release can be profitable is BECAUSE the theatrical release paid off most of the production cost.
Certainly, a decent portion of DVD revenue comes from people that have already paid to see the movie theatrically. If you get rid of the theatrical run, they get rid of this "double dip" revenue. Also, for people that previously saw the film in theater only, the revenue per person is likely to be less (family of 4 even at matinee price is going to be $30 vs $20 for a dvd/blu-ray purchase or $5 or $6 for a rental/ Pay per view)
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-18-2008, 01:52 PM:
Your point of view is based on the assumption that a theatrical run is required and always will be required for a movie to be credible. I do not believe that this is the case.
Right now, direct-to-video releases have a bit of a stigma attached to them. Usually, big stars aren't in them, A-list directors don't make them, and the studios don't push them very hard. They are often derivative movies or sequels of movies that didn't do all that well in the first place.
That stigma is just a marketing challenge, and one that I believe one or more studios will attempt to overcome in the next couple of years. Magnolia Films is already doing a home video release of first-run movies as a "sneak peek" on HDNet to build awareness for the theatrical release and test the waters of simultaneous release to theaters and home video.
If "The Incredible Hulk" were available on Blu-ray and DVD at the same time as it was released in theaters, how many people would choose to attend a movie theater instead of watching at home? My guess is that the largest percentage would be in the home video column.
You also point out that the DVD rentals and sales are a result of double-dipping the fans of the theatrical release. I believe that this is true to an extent, but I also think that there is a growing number of people that judge where/when they are going to see a movie based on whether it's worth going to the theater right now to see it.
For example, Get Smart looks like it could be funny, but it might not be. Some people will look at the publicity for it, and decide that it's probably worth renting, but not worth going to the theater for. At that point, it then becomes a question in their minds as to whether to buy the movie or rent it, and going to the movie theater to see it is no longer in the decision process. I would be curious to know what percentage of home video sales and rentals are first-time viewings of that movie...
Your comment that the "theater experience can't be pirated" is on the money. That's the biggest leverage that movie theaters have with their customers, and it is more often squandered than not.
People build home theater systems and rooms to gain that "ideal" theater experience at home. They want the big picture, the big sound, and some even take it to the level of decorations, mini concession counters, etc. From that perspective, the "theater experience" is being changed (pirated) by the customer.
Too often, movie theaters do not provide the ideal movie theater experience. In those cases, the theater has failed the paying customer. Not only will that customer consider patronizing another theater instead, they may decide to forgo the theatrical experience altogether and wait for it to come out on video instead. Sooner or later, studios are going to go after that money even more quickly than they are now.
If theaters want to remain in the loop, they need to constantly improve the movie-going experience so that they are the first thought when someone finds out about a new movie coming out. If the industry as a whole can be successful in being first and foremost in the minds of their paying audiences, studios will not abandon that money. But, if the industry continues to use the exclusive release window as a crutch, its role as middle-man could come to an end.
From what Mike is saying, it sounds as though he's really treating his customers right. He's able to compete with movies when they're already released on DVD, which is a great accomplishment! I'm certain that it's a result of paying attention to the movie-going experience and making it the best he can.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-18-2008, 03:05 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
If "The Incredible Hulk" were available on Blu-ray and DVD at the same time as it was released in theaters, how many people would choose to attend a movie theater instead of watching at home? My guess is that the largest percentage would be in the home video column.
That would be true NO DOUBT if the price of the Blu-ray was the same as they are currently priced.
My point is that if they do this it will destroy the theater business. At the same time, it will destroy their own business because if you take the theatrical gross out of the equation, each movie will bring in less total revenue because, 1) the double dip will be gone and 2) people who would have seen it in the theater will be paying less to see it. If they try pricing at like $50 for first run pay per view, people will have viewing parties so the effective revenue per viewer will be lower than the theatrical release.
Also, I don't care what they do, movies will lose their appeal and become special TV events. The theatrical release (and the resultant box office gross publicity) is what makes movies different than TV shows in people's minds and enables the studios to charge $25 - $30 for a Blu-ray disk. Kill the theaters and movies just become a made for TV movie which will de-value the product and force lower prices on PPV and DVD/Blu-ray.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 03:34 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
Right now, direct-to-video releases have a bit of a stigma attached to them. Usually, big stars aren't in them, A-list directors don't make them, and the studios don't push them very hard. They are often derivative movies or sequels of movies that didn't do all that well in the first place.
Disney is one of few outfits that can make direct to video content work and sell well. But even Disney doesn't put its major productions into a mere direct to video release.
Aside from the real stigma direct to video has, there's an even bigger problem. LOTS of movies are released directly on DVD with no theatrical run or a very limited run. Some of these movies are worth seeing, but get lost in a huge crowd of a low quality crap.
The model of theatrical release gives a big budget movie or a high quality movie with lower budget a unique showcase above the crowd of video-only titles. Even when those movies do arrive on DVD, chances are the video store customers will remember seeing the TV commercials and movie trailers for the show's theatrical run.
If everything goes direct to video then everything is just going to go to much lower budgets. It will all be made for TV fare. Not all of that is bad. But no studio is going to risk $150 million plus marketing costs on a 2 hour movie whose only venue is the living room.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-19-2008, 04:24 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
Alvin/Chipm---$217M------------$142M--------$90M-------$38M
To quote Will Smith in every movie he has ever made, "awwww hell no!"
I would've liked to have seen what The Onion Movie would have done had it been given a theatrical release.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2008, 10:11 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
Certainly, a decent portion of DVD revenue comes from people that have already paid to see the movie theatrically.
You're absolutely right. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "I'll be buying this one!" from moviegoers who have just seen a good film.
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 06-19-2008, 04:15 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Major studio films often cost well over $100 million to produce. Add another $30 to $60 million for the marketing.
Yep... all those C-47s add up.
(I'll explain it if someone asks.)
Explanation: A C-47 is a wooden clothespin, used to hold gels onto film lights (they have to be wooden because metal would get too hot, and plastic would melt). Historically when producers wanted to inflate the budget of a film (usually spending the extra money on a car, or some such thing) they would claim that the extra money was needed for C-47s.
[Edited to include explanation.]
[ 06-26-2008, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: John Lasher ]
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-20-2008, 11:19 PM:
They stink?
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-21-2008, 01:25 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
The thing is, if the theatrical gross is drastically reduced, the DVD releases won't be turning a profit anymore.
It seems as if it won't be drastically reduced by shortening that window. You often see a movie earning over half it's entire gross opening weekend. Pictures don't hold as long. We've held them in the past as long as 28 weeks continually, but right now the longest one we've had just started it's 7th week.
The point is, it doesn't seem like the studios will be out much by releasing the DVD's earlier and they will save on some already-mentioned marketing costs. So long as they don't release it day-and-date that is.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2008, 05:05 PM:
Actually all of the studios are on board with leaving the window just as it is. A shorter window for a "lesser" title would cannibalize the theatre grosses, and a longer window results in higher advertising because they have to re-promote the movie.
They also know that if they ever did release a movie day-and-date to video, 99% of the theatres would not play it. So much for that big opening weekend gross.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-22-2008, 02:11 AM:
It's very simple math.
If you reduce the window between theatrical release and home video a great deal more people will simply wait out the scant few weeks of the theatrical run and save money renting the movie on DVD or Blu-ray. Very simple.
Even if the damned Blu-ray costs $5.99 + tax to rent it's still a lot cheaper than hauling a family of 1 to 4 to the movie theater to see the show in a commercial theater just a month earlier.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-23-2008, 03:11 PM:
The release window continues to shrink, but at a much slower pace than a year or so ago. It's down to about 109-120 days.
The comment that so many movies are released directly to DVD in relative obscurity is exactly what I'm talking about. It's all about marketing!
How do you think songs become popular? Radio playtime, positioning on iTunes and Amazon.com. Billboards. Radio ads. Newspaper and Magazine ads. Online advertising.
Differentiation in the marketplace is almost all about marketing to the right people at the right time with the right message.
For example, "My Mom's New Boyfriend" was released on DVD last Tuesday. Even though it has well-known stars in it (Antonio Banderas, Meg Ryan, Colin Hanks, and Selma Blair), I don't think more than a handful of people know about it. Is it any good? I don't know, but I will have an opinion after I review it.
My guess is that it will pass into obscurity without much awareness, no matter how good or bad it is. Now imagine if the studio had put even a small percentage of the marketing budget allotted for a traditional theatrical release...
If you're seeing a billboard for the movie every time you go to work, then see the ad when you're browsing your favorite movie web site, the morning radio team is talking it up, and you see ads for it during primetime TV, you might be interested enough to check it out.
It's all about marketing. Right now, theaters still play a part in the marketing of movies, but I don't think it's a wise idea to assume that they always will, just because they always have.
Re: Incredible Hulk on home video simultaneously with theatrical release
I deliberately didn't mention what price such a release would have, because I don't think that pricing it at the same price as traditional home video releases would be successful. It would cannibalize sales because there wouldn't be a double-dip situation.
But what happens if the studio goes to DirecTV and says that they want to release Incredible Hulk on PPV for $xx.xx?
PPV policies on DirecTV are now such that recording on DVR's only saves that movie for a short period of time, so the time exclusivity factor is still there; giving them the ability to release on DVD/Blu-ray at a later time. Services like the Xbox Marketplace, Sony PlayStation Store, Amazon Unbox, Vudu, Roku's Netflix player, and even AppleTV make delivering movies directly to the home under controlled scenarios more possible than ever.
I don't know what the magic price is for such an approach, but I'm sure that studios already know. If I had to guess, I would say that they would use an average viewers per household to be around 2. Take that number times how much they would see from ticket sales at a movie theater ($12-15 for two people?), and that would be a reasonable PPV price for them. Heck, I'd easily pay $15 to watch WALL-E at home in HD instead of the movie theater. Since my family would want to see it as well, I'd probably be willing to pay upwards of $25-$30. That's roughly the same amount as I'd pay in a movie theater for admission for two adults and two kids.
Again, I'm not trying to bash (too much) on movie theaters, but I do think it's important for movie theaters to understand that they are a line item on a marketing campaign budget, not a sacred cow that is completely safe from sacrifice in pursuit of more money by the studios. They just need to realize how they fit into things and how they can make themselves so valuable to both movie studios and moviegoers that they lessen the risk of being on the wrong side of the budget spreadsheet.
Any theater that is using their exclusivity of product as a crutch to run their business instead of delivering a real value-added service to their customers should be very concerned about their long-term viability. If word of mouth doesn't kill them outright, the shifting marketplace will do the job.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-23-2008, 03:58 PM:
Still, you are talking about apples and oranges. Putting the kids in the car and going to the theatre to see Wall-E is an event, a family outing, something the kids will remember all their lives maybe. (I still remember going to the drive-in with my grandma to see Bambi when I was about 4.)
And don't start with going on about the crowds or the lines. First, some people actually like that -- it's part of the experience -- but it's easy to avoid that and still see the movie the first week - all it takes is a little planning and some smarts (as in, avoid the evening shows in the opening couple of days).
A pay-per-view or a DVD is just a TV show, just like all the other hundreds of TV shows that pour into your house every week. Steve, I think in your ideal world, people would never leave their houses.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-24-2008, 11:20 AM:
I agree that going to a movie theater should be an event. It should be a fun activity that can be enjoyed whether you are 8 or 88.
There are also some movies that are going to be much more enjoyable in the right crowd than they would be at home. I heard a lot of comments like that about Borat, as part of the fun is being part of a crowd that was enjoying it. Get Smart strikes me as just such a movie.
That's what I call the moviegoing experience, and I'm all for movie theaters doing whatever possible to make that experience the best it possibly can be. I would even go so far as to say that it's what movie theaters are in business to do. If all a person wants to do is see a movie, they can wait around 100 days, and watch it at home. In fact, many people with "home theaters" are looking to create that ideal movie-going experience by having the room equipped and decorated (often times, much more nicely than any contemporary multiplex) and a popcorn machine, etc.
But the problem is that many movie theaters squander the opportunity to deliver a really great movie-going experience. They treat customers like cattle, getting them in and out as quickly as possible, and they don't do anything they don't absolutely have to do in order to get people in and out the door. And then they wonder why admissions are down year after year!
I'm more than happy to spend money at a movie theater to see a movie, but that theater should earn that money, not just have it given to them simply because they have exclusive access to the movie I want to see.
I've driven to the Chicago area quite a few times to experience movies at a variety of venues (the Elgin Fox at Mark's suggestion many years ago, McClurg Court before it was closed, etc.) and even gone as far as Dayton, Ohio to experience Cinerama at the New Neon Movies when they were doing those shows back in the 90's.
If I want to have a group experience, I can invite a dozen friends over to watch a movie with me. We make a night of it by making popcorn, putting out boxes of candy (we don't charge $3.50 for that 88 cent box, so we don't have the complete experience down yet), and the lights dim with an intro trailer before the feature begins. We've had 20 kids in our basement watching Cars, and those kids still talk about that night!
To think that a movie has to be seen in a movie theater in order for it to be a legitimate experience is bull. It's only TV if you treat it like TV. When it's in a darkened room that has been designed for that purpose, with a 100" wide screen (33 degree viewing angle) and 7 channels of surround sound, and everyone is there for the same purpose, it's an event just as much as going to a movie theater is (and I would say, better than many movie theaters because of the effort I put into the presentation).
Maybe all of you guys have better theaters than we do around here...
Bottom line is, it's about having options. Studios want to tap the market that is represented by the people that don't attend movie theaters, and they're going to find a way to do it. If theaters don't do their jobs and get those people to come to the movies in their theaters, the studios will find a way to get those movies into those people's homes.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-24-2008, 12:24 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Still, you are talking about apples and oranges. Putting the kids in the car and going to the theatre to see Wall-E is an event, a family outing, something the kids will remember all their lives maybe. (I still remember going to the drive-in with my grandma to see Bambi when I was about 4.)
That says more about you than it does about movies being an event. Some people are visual and remember stuff in movies really well. I'm definitely NOT one of them. When I added Borne Supremacy to my netflix queue since I also wanted to later see Borne Ultimatum just get the whole trilogy done with, it took quite a while before I realized I'd seen the movie already. Even after I realized it I hardly recognized most of the movie and enjoyed it as if it was new to me. And that's completely different from a classmate of mine; if it involves a movie he remembers it pretty well.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2008, 12:52 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
If I want to have a group experience, I can invite a dozen friends over to watch a movie with me. We make a night of it by making popcorn, putting out boxes of candy
Well Scott there's only one thing wrong with your experience, and that is that YOU have to do it all. Make the popcorn, buy the candy, buy the movie, run the movie, clean up any mess left by your guests afterwards. Not to mention blocking out the time to do all of it, plus there's no guarantee you won't get interrupted while your movie is playing.
I am truly sorry that the theatres in your area have left you so jaded about the moviegoing experience. I also think you're kind of unrealistic about what it takes to operate a theater and make a profit. But, I do fear that many big-city operations are hurting this industry a lot with crappy treatment of customers and film.
quote: Chris Slycord
Some people are visual and remember stuff in movies really well. I'm definitely NOT one of them. When I added Borne Supremacy to my netflix queue since I also wanted to later see Borne Ultimatum just get the whole trilogy done with, it took quite a while before I realized I'd seen the movie already.
See now I'm that way with TV shows, but my wife is the opposite. If we're watching something we've recorded, she'll know immediately if we've seen it before, while I might get to the first commercial break before I recognize it. Conversely with movies, if I'm flipping through the TV channels I can spot a favorite old movie in about 2 microseconds when I see it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2008, 01:55 PM:
quote:
The comment that so many movies are released directly to DVD in relative obscurity is exactly what I'm talking about. It's all about marketing!
It's also about budgeting. Most straight-to-DVD releases don't have anywhere near the marketing budget of a major movie release. It costs a hell of a lot of money to run an effective ad blitz across several forms of advertising media on a national level.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I deliberately didn't mention what price such a release would have, because I don't think that pricing it at the same price as traditional home video releases would be successful. It would cannibalize sales because there wouldn't be a double-dip situation.
As a rental item, a DVD or Blu-ray disc released day and date with the same movie in theaters would bring in a lot less revenue per viewer. One person could rent the disc, let his family watch it, loan it to the neighbors, coworkers, etc. -just like what already goes on with many rental discs.
Charging a premium, even a high premium would reinforce the sharing practice. Look at what goes on with a lot of high priced pay per view shows, such as a live UFC mixed martial arts event. Very few people will pay $30 or more to watch something like that alone or just with one other person. You get groups of people crowding into a house for that sort of thing. However, I don't think they would be willing to do that for a movie that can be seen in the exact same manner a few weeks later at a cheaper rental price. I think many of the people who prefer watching movies at home are also very content to wait longer for the movie to come out on DVD.
Some have proposed selling copies of a movie currently in theatrical release on DVD or Blu-ray in the theater lobby or in regular retail stores and charge a premium for it. The problem with that idea is when a movie arrives in theaters it is only just barely finished.
Movie production work flows would have to change very dramatically to fit in the production of a sell through video product to have ready at the time of the movie's theatrical release. The final cut of the movie would have to be locked in at least a month or two before opening day to allow time to test screen the movie, do other last minute edits and still have enough time to author a disc good enough that people will want to buy. I think that's simply asking way too much.
Right now the separate window between home video and theatrical release gives the movie studio and filmmakers time enough to go back and fix little things they didn't get right in the theatrical cut, make alternate changes for things that didn't work in the theatrical cut or fit in a lot of good stuff that couldn't be included in the theatrical cut. The production won't have any of those opportunities with a disc released day and date with the theatrical cut.
One could make a day and date disc a bare bones item with minimal menu structure and little to no extras. But anyone who buys that disc probably isn't going to buy another "deluxe" version of it 3-4 months later. Lots of people who pay to see a good movie in a movie theater will often buy the DVD or Blu-ray disc of that movie later on. That's one example of a "double dip" marketing model that works. It's pretty likely that a lot of the people who will be spending $20-$30 for Iron Man on Blu-ray this fall probably have already seen it in the movie theater.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-25-2008, 02:09 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I am truly sorry that the theatres in your area have left you so jaded about the moviegoing experience. I also think you're kind of unrealistic about what it takes to operate a theater and make a profit. But, I do fear that many big-city operations are hurting this industry a lot with crappy treatment of customers and film.
I equate going to the movies around here to eating at McDonalds.
The food at McD's is edible, but no one would mistake the food for anything approaching "cuisine." The service is the bare minimum from employees making the bare minimum. The upside is that you know what you're going to get, as most McDonald's are consistent in their quality. I like to go to the specially-themed restaurants (solid gold, rock & roll, etc.) so at least there is some novelty to the experience.
Likewise, going to the movies around here is pretty much the same. The service is usually courteous, but not overly so. The popcorn often has plenty of hulls and leaves that aftertaste that takes hours to go away (kind of like McDonald's hamburgers, but not the same taste).
The sound presentation is usually good, so that's pretty consistent across the board. Picture quality is a little more iffy. I'm very sensitive to jump and weave, and it's bothersome to see the image do a dance, especially when text is displayed on the screen (like in The Incredible Hulk).
While Marcus has put some effort into their lobbies of late (see photos of the Majestic Cinema for examples), there isn't much special about the design of the exterior or interiors of most theaters. None have curtains on the screens, none play digital sound trailers, and now for some reason, the lights don't go down nearly as much as they used to, which causes the contrast to go way down. I get better black levels on my home system that's 4.5 years old (considered nearly ancient in home theater projectors).
I fully admit that I probably wouldn't stay in business very long if I owned a movie theater. I would want to do the things that I thought should be done to create a good show. I would then find out that there isn't money for such things, and I would get jaded and cynical. Then I would hate my job and my customers, and become what I previously railed against.
Or maybe my approach would strike a chord with people and it would be successful. It would require a ton of effort and up-front investment to find out, though. If only I had Mark Cuban's money! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well Scott there's only one thing wrong with your experience, and that is that YOU have to do it all. Make the popcorn, buy the candy, buy the movie, run the movie, clean up any mess left by your guests afterwards. Not to mention blocking out the time to do all of it, plus there's no guarantee you won't get interrupted while your movie is playing.
I don't mind doing it all because that's what it's all about when you entertain friends. The people I invite over are clean, they pick up after themselves, and we've never been interrupted by cell phone calls. My room is soundproof, so the only reason I'd hear the phone ring is if I brought the cordless with me.
And consider that I'm willing to do all that, and they don't pay me a dime! If each person paid me $8.50 for admission, $3.75 for a soda, and $3.50 for a popcorn, I'd be looking at some equipment upgrades!
The time it takes to watch a movie at home is nothing compared to the time it takes to go out and see a movie. If my wife and I want to go to a non-kids movie, we need to plan it in advance so we can arrange for the sitter. I may have to pick up the sitter, bring her back, we get the kids settled in and say goodbyes. Then we go to the theater and wait in the box office line, then wait in the concession line, then wait through the pre-show ads for the movie. After the movie, there's taking the sitter home.
For a two hour movie, you're talking about at least 4 hours of time and $40 - $50 from beginning to end, and that's if you don't go out for dinner and if you don't spring for the Marcus UltraScreen and/or VIP seating. Watching a movie at home is much more convenient and cheaper (after the equipment is purchased, of course). We've already purchased soda, popcorn, and snacks when we go grocery shopping, so there's no extra effort there.
I'm more than happy to put all that aside and let someone else do the work, though. But theaters have to earn that business, and at least around here, they don't in my mind. They are a necessary way to see a first-run movie if you don't want to wait for the Blu-ray to be released.
I find it interesting that there are very few threads on Film-Tech that talk about what theaters are doing to make going to the movies fun. I'd be curious to know what we're missing out on around here...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2008, 03:07 PM:
I guess I don't understand what theatres are supposed to do to make going to the movies more fun for you. Most of the hassle you describe comes from having to deal with a babysitter, which the theatre can't do anything about, and standing in lines. Theatres are helping in that regard by putting in online ticket sales -- which hardly anyone takes advantage of, from what I've read. Concession lines - well, you might consider going on a weeknight.
Your home scenario sounds great, but at the end of the day you're still staring at your same four walls. We have a nice TV setup at our house, but when it comes to planning an evening with friends, the first thought that comes to mind is "where can we go?" Not "Let's stay home."
The fact remains that a city theatre has to accommodate a lot of people and charge the prices it does in order to pay its bills, PLUS, contrary to what the home theatre crowd would like to believe, there are lots of people who want to go to the movies! So you're going to have crowds.
If you've never had a cellphone interruption while watching a movie with your friends, that would be a minor miracle. I don't know if I believe that one.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I fully admit that I probably wouldn't stay in business very long if I owned a movie theater. I would want to do the things that I thought should be done to create a good show. I would then find out that there isn't money for such things, and I would get jaded and cynical.
I don't know, I've been able to do most of the things here that are necessary for creating a good show -- new seats (2004), Dolby digital sound, we redecorated the lobby this year, and we bring in new movies on the break as much as possible, and the money has never been a problem because we're careful in other areas including how much money we take out of the business.
The big thing I wish we could do now are the stage curtains. (Someday, someday.) The one part of our building which I freely admit is really bad, is the restrooms, because they are tiny and there's no room to expand them. However, I don't think I'm jaded and cynical. Well, not yet!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-25-2008, 05:41 PM:
And I was going to ask....do you have curtains?! They are a high priority for me. While they don't improve the movie, they do improve the experience. Generally the person that keeps up his curtains also keeps up his other stuff. They also show a degree of professionalism that I perfer. Curtains also keep the screen notably cleaner (we were able to keep screens longer in our curtained theatres than the non-curtained ones...way back). I detest preshow ads (rolling stock or stationary) as they take away from the theatre atmosphere...they make it more like home TV...the thing I got away from.
For the popcorn...Real Butter or skip it...with the possible exception of Super Kist II (the best butter sub).
The sound better be good and the print better be clean and blemish free.
And, of course, I give a strong preference to those that run changeovers...for me, they tend to have better shows (someone up the might actually be paying attention to the show I'm watching...not just threading and pushing a button). But that is just me. If you don't want to pay for someone to show me the movie, I don't want to pay you.
Steve
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2008, 06:04 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
And I was going to ask....do you have curtains?! They are a high priority for me. While they don't improve the movie, they do improve the experience.
Believe me, they are high on my want-list. We used to have a curtain, but the ancient travel system crapped out -- it would stop in the middle unpredictably. We took the curtain down with the idea of getting it cleaned and having the motor and etc. fixed, but the curtain just fell apart!
I hate plain bare white screens, so as a poor but workable substitute, we placed colored spotlights on the stage which cast streaks of light across the screen...they are hooked into our dimmer so the lights fade down as the picture comes on.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-25-2008, 08:27 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If you reduce the window between theatrical release and home video a great deal more people will simply wait out the scant few weeks of the theatrical run and save money renting the movie on DVD or Blu-ray. Very simple.
I disagree and statistics would say otherwise. People who watch the most movies in the theatre also buy the most DVDs, get the most pay-per-views and rent or subscribe to netflix or whatever. In other words, people who like movies like movies everywhere. It's proven.
I'm with Mike. It's not about the money being spent; it's a social experience. It's a date, an event, an outing. I'm also with Steve in that your presentation and customer service needs to be excellent. Evidence about it not being about the money can be found in virtually every "blue collar" market's attendance and per cap figures versus nearby "white collar" communities. Almost without exception, areas with lower household incomes spend more (usually significantly more) at their theatres than upper-middle class communities.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-25-2008, 09:26 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
I disagree and statistics would say otherwise.
Let's see some of those statistics. I want verifiable proof they say otherwise.
quote: Chad Souder
People who watch the most movies in the theatre also buy the most DVDs, get the most pay-per-views and rent or subscribe to netflix or whatever. In other words, people who like movies like movies everywhere. It's proven.
No it isn't proven. You're making wild assumptions -the wildest being that a limited group of people is carrying the entire movie exhibition and home video industries.
quote: Chad Souder
Almost without exception, areas with lower household incomes spend more (usually significantly more) at their theatres than upper-middle class communities.
Again that's another big presumptuous leap. Let's see some real economic numbers on that. Last I checked, new movie theaters usually don't get built in run down sections of town. They usually open in the better areas, areas populated with lots of McMansions and near a lot of retail and restaurant development.
The Vaska theater here in Lawton draws some pretty decent numbers from low income crowds. But then it's a second run/bargain theater and the ticket prices cost less than a new DVD rental.
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-25-2008, 09:50 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
And I was going to ask....do you have curtains?! They are a high priority for me. While they don't improve the movie, they do improve the experience.
I argue that they DO improve the movie, by keeping kids from throwing crap on the screen between shows when no one is around. I've been in many theatres with a bad spot on the screen from a soda splash or a jelly bean or something. It's a huge distraction in every bright scene.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2008, 10:06 PM:
Bobby - it has been shown in studies I've read in Boxoffice and elsewhere that the majority of home theatre owners are also avid theatrical moviegoers. I do agree with you that a lot of that market would go away if the window was lost.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-26-2008, 09:08 AM:
Chad was claiming there are studies showing movie theaters won't take any negative hit if a movie is released in theaters and on home video at the same time or nearly the same time. I don't believe that and I want to see the specific published studies he's talking about.
Home theater owners are avid movie-goers. That is true. But they don't represent the entire movie-going market. And not all of them are going to behave the same way if a movie is released day and date in theaters and on home video at the same time. They're not all going to rush to the theater and buy/rent a copy of the movie on DVD or Blu-ray at the same time. A lot of them will just buy/rent the movie and watch it at home. There is a significant portion of home theater owners who believe their home setup is superior to the movie theaters in their town. Day and date releases would give them the perfect excuse to stay at home.
I'll also add that a lot of the "we just want to get out of the house" crowd that represents the real back-bone of the movie theater market isn't made of of techie gear-head home theater fans. These are the folks that keep all the crappy movie theaters in business.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-26-2008, 06:28 PM:
Day-and-date is never going to happen, so it's a moot point. I wasn't talking about day-and-date. I guess I didn't know what you meant since you weren't clear and didn't specify when you wrote if you reduce the window "a great deal". I consider going from 150 days to 100 a great deal like Scott was talking about, but that drop hasn't affected theatres. What did you mean?
quote: Bobby Henderson
No it isn't proven. You're making wild assumptions -the wildest being that a limited group of people is carrying the entire movie exhibition and home video industries.
Yes it is proven. At the past two NATO conventions I have been at, president John Fithian talked specifically about this point. Maybe he's making wild assumptions too, but I get the impression he knows his stuff. I'll repeat. People who love movies, love movies everywhere, just like sports fans love their sport everywhere. They will go watch a game in a bar when they could easily watch the same game at home with total control of their environment and much cheaper food and beer and very possibly an equivalent or better video and audio setup. It goes back to that whole social outing thing.
Working in a theatre for 16 years, I can tell you our demographics are real, real easy to peg.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There is a significant portion of home theater owners who believe their home setup is superior to the movie theaters in their town.
Where are your statistics to support that wild assumption? Let's see some real numbers on that!
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-26-2008, 11:10 PM:
Well THIS is interesting...Apparently the "Get Smart" guys shot a straight to video spinoff for release while the feature is still in first-run.
"Get Smart's Bruce and Lloyd Out of Control" goes straight to DVD and Blu-ray next Tuesday. It clocks in at 71 minutes, and based on what I see in the TV commercial, is centered around the creation of Hymie.
Talk about cashing in...
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-27-2008, 08:37 PM:
They're gettin' it while the gettin's good. A few months from now, people will probably be saying, "There was a 'Get Smart' movie?"
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-28-2008, 06:44 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
Yes it is proven. At the past two NATO conventions I have been at, president John Fithian talked specifically about this point. Maybe he's making wild assumptions too, but I get the impression he knows his stuff.
I disagree. Based upon his column in Boxoffice, I get the distinct impression that the guy doesn't know very much at all, but is really good at making self-serving wild assumptions. He seems like a politician, not someone who is deeply knowledgeable about motion-picture exhibiton.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-28-2008, 11:46 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
Yes it is proven. At the past two NATO conventions I have been at, president John Fithian talked specifically about this point. Maybe he's making wild assumptions too, but I get the impression he knows his stuff.
You're repeating the opinion of one person and providing no actual marketing evidence to support the claim. So you didn't prove anything. Even if John Fithian is carrying his opinion to be an "educated" one, it's still only opinion, not a statement of fact.
quote:
Where are your statistics to support that wild assumption? Let's see some real numbers on that!
Visit any forum regarding home theater and you will see lots of participants talking about how they only watch movies at home. Many seem very proud of this. You'll see the same attitude coming from participants at other forums dealing film or television. It even goes on here at this forum and even in this thread. Just look at what Scott Jentsch is saying. There's a lot of people who buy fancy home theater setups so they don't have to go to the theater anymore. Unfortunately there is a list of negative aspects of going to movie theaters these days, and you don't have to put up with any of that crap at home.
I'm often critical of the "I only watch movies at home" crowd because many of them consider themselves to be film fans. My opinion is true film fans at least make some effort to visit commercial movie theaters and support that side of the business. Without commercial movie theaters you'll have no movie industry. It will only just be TV otherwise, and all the movies made for it will be appropriately smaller.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-28-2008, 04:36 PM:
I still think it is very funny how you demand "actual marketing evidence" for my claims while using extremely vague and general statements such as "lots of people", "many", "significant portion", "a lot of people", etc. and provide no real evidence for claims of your own. Visit any forumn regarding home theatre? Yeah, that select crowd won't be biased at all. I will, however, yield to your demands and provide the evidence you desire:
According to ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2007) the presence of other people enhances our movie experience. This study proves people emotionally prefer to go out to movies regardless of whether or not it is available to watch in your home (exactly what we're saying about the social aspect) but I'm just getting started.
www.mpaa.org has a "research/statistics" tab you can click on to find other statistics. You will find that throughout the explosion and improvement of flat screens and home audio, movie theatre attendance has increased from just under 1.1 billion tickets sold in 1992 to 1.4 billion in 2007 (US Entertainment Industry Marketing Statistics, page 4). Overall attendance has, in fact, increased every decade, although this study only focuses on more recent history (older data is available if you don't believe that either). Again, this is actual tickets sold, not dollars. Yes, obviously population has also increased, but if the home market was doing such damage to theatres, wouldn't you see overall attendance drop? The opposite is occurring. Here are some other stats I found interesting:
Almost 60% of all frequent moviegoers make over $50,000 per year and 77% make at least $35,000 (movie attendance study, page 10). This means the people that can afford all that high-end home theatre stuff go to the movies very often (and to clarify, when I said areas with lower household incomes spend more at theatre, I meant on food per person).
The most interest should be paid to page 10 of the US Entertainment Industry Marketing Statistics document. It states the following - One in seven U.S. moviegoers have invested to a great degree in content delivery and/or hardware for their home. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this segment of moviegoers goes to the movie theater more often than their lower tech counterparts. Those with 5 or more technologies attend 4 more movies per year than those with fewer technologies." It then goes on to provide the necessary stats.
So there you go - hard data supporting the claim that people who love movies, love movies everywhere (later in the report in discusses the increase in DVD sales and digital cable). I'm not making wild assumptions. People will beef up their home theatre system, then go out and watch it in the theatre. The shortened window hasn't affected anything and there are more screens now than 10 years ago. I believe someone owes John Fithian an apology...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-28-2008, 06:45 PM:
Chad, you still have not shown proof for your original claim.
You claimed that it would be okay to shorten the window between theatrical release and home video release much further and said that studies proved it would be just fine. That was your point of disagreement with me a page ago. Did you forget?
The blustering in your last post only supports the current status quo with no changes.
Right now the window between theatrical and home video release is a 3-5 month period. Some are calling for the window to be reduced to 4-6 weeks or even shorter than that. I believe that is a very bad idea and would hurt both the theatrical and home video business.
That kind of window would make it very easy for many people to just wait for the DVD or Blu-ray to arrive at rental stores. That kind of window would make it far more difficult for quality DVDs and Blu-ray discs of movies to be produced. The time deadlines for disc production would be stupidly ridiculous and would all but guarantee every single movie to be re-released on DVD and BD in classic double dip fashion.
quote: Chad Souder
still think it is very funny how you demand "actual marketing evidence" for my claims while using extremely vague and general statements such as "lots of people", "many", "significant portion", "a lot of people", etc. and provide no real evidence for claims of your own.
That's because I'm stating my opinion. And until you come up with something that says a 1 month theatrical/home video release window won't cause any harm to theaters I'm not going to change my opinion on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, you've only been expressing your opinion on the subject and I'm perfectly free to disagree with that.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2008, 08:46 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some are calling for the window to be reduced to 4-6 weeks or even shorter than that.
Some who? Some video fans? They've been screaming for that since video was invented. The studios know that they need a window of three to five months. The window has been fairly steady in that time frame for about three years.
When some studio honcho starts talking about shortening or collapsing the window, he's usually just trying to impress people with his innovative "ideas." After the bluster has died down, cooler heads prevail. This has happened repeatedly over the past few years.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-28-2008, 10:16 PM:
Certainly video fans have been calling for it. But they have no idea whatsoever in how impractical such a thing would be. They have no clue that a movie is a sort of ever-changing thing until the final cut is locked down mere weeks or just a few days before it hits the screens in theaters. A hell of a lot of work goes into a good quality DVD or Blu-ray disc project. It doesn't just get thrown together in a couple of days. Having the studio shit out the theatrical cut and then immediately turn around and vomit out some disc for retail sounds very unreasonable to me.
Then you have guys like Bob Iger with Disney calling for day and date release between theatrical and home video.
Bean counters are the primary guys calling for ever shortening release windows. Maximizing profit is the main goal, even if it screws movie theaters in the process. Just about any movie is made with a lot of borrowed money that is accruing interest and compounding it daily. If the bean counters can twist some arms to get the movie in and out of theaters as fast as possible and into home video even faster than normal they will do it because they believe it will save a lot of money in interest payments. Unfortunately the strategy shows a lack of faith in the movie product itself.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-30-2008, 04:40 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If you've never had a cellphone interruption
I must hang out with a really strange group of friends, but they don't have cell phones attached to their heads at all times, and they rarely get called when we get together.
Maybe it's a demographics/age group thing, but we consider cell phones to be something that is used when it's important, not when you feel like chatting just because there's a commercial while you're watching a repeat of Sex and the City on TBS.
I have never had a movie in my home interrupted by a cell phone call. I would expect that any of my guests would have the decency to turn them off or at least put them on vibrate and only answer if it was from their babysitter or some emergency that couldn't wait.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess I don't understand what theatres are supposed to do to make going to the movies more fun for you. Most of the hassle you describe comes from having to deal with a babysitter, which the theatre can't do anything about, and standing in lines. Theatres are helping in that regard by putting in online ticket sales -- which hardly anyone takes advantage of, from what I've read. Concession lines - well, you might consider going on a weeknight.
This one's easy! I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating myself, because it's something that is near and dear to my heart.
To me, seeing a movie is all about the experience. I want to be entertained, not just by the movie, but by the entire experience. If all I wanted was the movie, then I could just wait for it to be released on home video. If I didn't care about the environment in which I watched movies, I'd be watching them on my cell phone, on my iPod, etc. I don't. Most often, when I'm home, I'm watching the movie in a darkened room and that's what I'm doing. I'm not reading the paper, not looking out the window, not talking on the phone. I have a large image with sound to match in an immersive environment that is geared to watching and enjoying movies.
So when I go to the movie theater, I want something even better than what I have at home.
When I get in the parking lot, I want to see neon and lots of it. When I walk in the door, I would like to be greeted by a friendly employee that actually seems happy to be there (or least can fake it well), and engages me instead of holding a side conversation with an usher that should be cleaning a theater instead of flirting with the ticket seller that is supposed to be paying attention to me.
I want concessions that are good quality. I can imagine that popcorn is very difficult to do well, and it's gotten to the point that I don't even expect it anymore. Movie theater popcorn sucks in general, so I've given up and pursued other options. I really like the soft pretzel sticks that one local theater serves, but the only sauce they provide is the nasty nacho cheese garbage that shouldn't be used to fill concrete much less be put on food. The service from the concession staff should also be cheerful and focused (I am amazed, and frustrated, at how often this is not the case).
Once I'm in the theater, the seats should be comfortable and the theater clean. The screen should be a decent size so that I can sit at a comfortable distance and height if I arrive in time to pick my seat. I usually see movies during the week, so there are usually less than a dozen people at any show I attend. I went to the iPic here in Milwaukee that had great seats, but the screen was too small for the size of the room and the height of the seating. Reserved seating and the fact that it was opening day for Indy 4 prevented me from being able to change seats, but seats closer were pretty low to the screen anyway.
I would love if the theater had curtains, so that the movie could begin with a fanfare that included the dimming of the lights and the pulling of the curtains.
I'd forgive the rolling stock and slide ads completely if only theaters were to do this. In the absence of real curtains, I'd be even give a passing grade to "digital curtains" that were part of the end of the pre-show or part of the ramp-up to the policy and movie trailers. I'm sure that there are talented video animators out there that would be able to supply animated curtains accompanied by some fanfare music that could be shown before the trailers kicked in. The lights that Mike uses sound like they accomplish much the same thing.
Above all the other things, the sound should be perfect and the so should the picture! No audio cut-outs, certainly no drop-outs at the reel changes (those are mostly a thing of the past now), and a wide dynamic range. I think most people complain about volume when the system isn't calibrated properly or there is a problem with bad equipment or distortion of some kind.
Probably the most annoying thing with going to the movie theater is the fact that most theaters can't figure out how to keep the image on the screen still! I know that there are some limitations imposed by the equipment being used, but I have to believe that competent operators and technicians are capable of putting on a presentation that isn't jumping around all over the place. I'm probably more sensitive to this than avid movie-goers, because I'm used to rock-steady images from my home system. This is probably the single biggest advantage I have seen for digital cinema.
If I were to run a movie theater, I would want to have someone up in the booth paying attention to the projectors. I once watched one guy manage 12 screens and he knew almost instinctively when something needed to be paid attention to. When I saw movies there, I'd often look back at the projection window and see him tweaking the focus as the movie began.
I would make sure that my staff smiled and focused on their customers. I would want to welcome my guests to the theater before each show by doing a pre-show talk. I would have my staff checking in on each screen at least once during every show just to make sure that the presentation was going well and that there weren't any behavior problems.
I would be roaming the lobby and engaging my customers. Maybe even meeting them at the exits and thanking them for coming. Hopefully, I would be having fun doing it.
But I would imagine that reality is much different from this fantasy. Working on paper-thin margins probably means hiring staff that didn't want to work at McDonalds, cutting corners whenever possible to reduce costs, and running around like a chicken with its head cut off because putting out fires all the time. And I certainly would not be having fun. But that's why I'm not in the business, and because the reality doesn't meet the fantasy, I stay home to watch movies more often than not because I can control the environment and make it enjoyable for myself and my guests.
This turned out much longer than it should have, but it's hard for me not to get going about it.
Maybe if you've skipped the large paragraphs, you'll see this last point.
Movie theaters should serve their customers like they give a damn about what their customers think, like they are guests and not cattle.
Make the experience fun and special.
From the moment I enter the parking lot to watching the movie to using the bathroom to walking through the door after it's all over, the experience should be something special and not just something that I had to do because I couldn't see the movie anywhere else because theaters have a release window that protects them from competition.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2008, 07:24 PM:
Scott - I guess it goes back to a comment I made a few pages ago - the theatres in your area must be awful, and I feel bad about that.
We do work on the paper-thin margin you describe, and often I do run around "putting out fires," but that's the business and I love it. (My wife tells me that she thinks I thrive on crisis.) The satisfaction comes from standing in the back of the crowd after the show has started, watching them enjoy the show and knowing we're doing the best job we can and giving them their money's worth.
Here, we are small, but we try to do all of the things you list. One thing we do that you did not list: We run the trailers at the proper volume and adjust for the feature.
One thing we're lacking is a "fanfare" like you describe. I have always thought it would be a great idea to have a ten minute film just showing a set of stage curtains. The soundtrack could be a medley of classic movie themes played at soft pre-show levels. At the end of the film, the music would swell and the curtains would open on a card that said, "Welcome to the movies! Please enjoy some previews of our coming attractions!" and fade to black.
Of course the market for such a thing would be limited due to pre-show advertising....but a shorter one-minute version could be made to show after the ads for those places doing advertising.
And people are constantly raving about our popcorn, so it can't be impossible to do!
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-01-2008, 01:24 PM:
Perhaps I'm making it sound worse that it really is, but knowing what's possible, it's frustrating to pay first-rate prices for second-rate presentations.
I expect a certain lack of quality and apathy when it comes to the larger chains (kind of like McDonalds), but I find the lack of showmanship in some of the single-location theaters frustrating as well. I guess some operations are just set up to serve the masses with mediocre product and as long as they have paying customers, why do more?
It certainly seems that you are doing more than that. I like the idea of the one-minute curtain pull and fanfare after the pre-show and before the trailers. I'm sure your customers would get a kick out of it.
I have the CERT intro that I use once in a while in my home:
http://www.customintros.com/
People like it, and it shows off the sound system a little before the show. I also use some of the Dolby Digital, DTS, and THX trailers from time to time to mix things up. Such customized intro trailers are quite popular in the home theater hobby, and it's just yet another example of how much more fun people are making watching movies at home than most theaters make it to watch there.
My comments here are by no means intended as an insult to those here that actually do give a damn about their customers. It's the ones that don't give a damn (whether they are reading here or not) that I don't care for. It's not called "show business" for nothing!
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-05-2008, 02:02 PM:
Bobby -
Until you clarify what you mean by "a great deal more people", "significant portion", "lots of people", etc., I cannot continue with this discussion. Your "opinions" are so vague, I don't know what you are talking about and when I try and guess, I get it wrong. You then put words in my mouth which is poor form, even for you. I have given proof that the amount of time the DVD release window has shrunk thus far has not affected ticket sales. I have provided those stats and that evidence. I don't know what else you want. Please be very clear.
On page 1, you said if you reduce the window a great deal more people will wait. What does that mean? Reduce it how much? How many people? My guess is you don't have any clue. Your general wording and lack of clarity is very confusing.
While you're at it, please explain the "simple math" you referred to on page 1, because that is not an opinion, that is a statement of fact which I do not believe you can support with any data. Show me the "very simple" math so I may understand to what you are referring.
Until then, this discussion is over for me. Scott, I wish every theatre was exactly as you described. That does sound ideal.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-05-2008, 02:24 PM:
A great deal more people obviously means "lots of people." Oh but now you're gonna say "clarify what is meant by 'lots'". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And his statement of reducing the window "a great deal" obviously again means that it would be reduced significantly more than it is now. Like if the average window was reduced by, say, half-a-week that wouldn't be reducing it by "a great deal" but reducing it such that there was only 2 weeks between theater release and DVD release that would definitely be changing it by "a great deal." And if the DVD was gonna be available merely 2 weeks later, that would definitely affect the theaters.
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-22-2008, 11:04 PM:
I recently saw an IMAX film for the first time in a long time (Beavers, @ www.dmns.org), and I was really impressed by the pre-show slides. They bragged about the equipment and the format.
That got me wondering - why don't regular theatres do that? Why aren't there slides bragging about how much better their presentation vs the home?
- Here's how big this movie will be on DVD. (Pic of tiny tv at bottom of screen.)
- Now showing: 35mm film. More resolution, better color, and greater contrast than BluRay DVD!
- Tonight's feature will be presented in 5 gazillion watts of surround sound from 38 speakers (or whatever).
- Etc.
Hell, why don't good theatres brag about how great they are compared to the crappy theatre down the street?
- Our screen adjusts to fit the shape of the film. Our competitors simply chop off whatever doesn't fit. Want to see the whole film? See it here. (with pic)
- Sick of people interrupting your movie? Our ushers monitor the auditorium and toss out talkers!
- You are looking at a sixty foot wide Screen. Our competitors' largest screen is less than forty. Welcome to the big leagues.
- Etc.
It wouldn't cost much to make slides like that, or even a little video sequence. It seems to me, if you've gotta run a pre-show sequence, at least a portion of it should talk up the theater. It would be better than repeatedly asking trivia questions like "Who played Indiana Jones?"
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2008, 01:19 AM:
quote: Geoff Jones
Here's how big this movie will be on DVD. (Pic of tiny tv at bottom of screen.)
Some time ago I came up with what I thought was a great idea for a promotional "slug" that would capitalize on that same idea.
The action would be two or three guys hauling TV set after TV set into the picture, and stacking them up making a wall. Some of the TVs would be little portables, and some big console types. (And all of the action going real fast, like about double speed, with appropriate music.) When the "wall" gets about six or seven TVs high, and the guys are having trouble keeping the stack steady, a voice-over would say "You would need over 275 TV sets to make a picture as big as the one you get right here in the Roxy Theatre." About this time, the wall of TVs begins to teeter and finally crashes to the floor, leaving the guys scratching their heads. Voice over: "But why go to all that trouble? We offer you the big bright picture...not to mention Dolby digital sound and fresh popcorn. So sit back and relax, and let us do the work. Enjoy the show!"
Tim Reed, I'm sure you could flesh out this idea and do something great with it. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 07-23-2008, 10:16 AM:
We did a newspaper advertisement several years ago when we first opened that really got alot of attention.
We had a photo of a guy standing next to large rear projection bigscreen TV with the caption "Your Big Screen". The photo below that in the ad showed the same guy and the same TV was standing under our drive-in screen - panned out to reveal the full size of our screen with the caption "Our Big Screen".
The next line of text on the ad was simple... "Any Questions?"
I have a PDF of it somewhere... if I can find it, I'll post it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2008, 01:49 PM:
Barry, that's awesome! Even a smallish theatre screen looks huge next to the biggest "big screen" TV.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-23-2008, 03:51 PM:
And size isn't the only factor... no one's big screen is gonna have anywhere near the resolution of a theater's "big screen."
Reminds me when my mom worked at Duke and we went to her boss's and her husband's house for some party. Since the couple were both big-shot doctors/researchers, they were also huge yuppies and seemed to feel the need to show off with all the fancy stuff they had. So they showed off their big-screen projection TV (front projection on a 7-foot screen). I was no videophile but when I saw the picture on that thing I thought "Goddamn that looks like crap." Granted this was the late 80s or very early 90s and the products have come a long way since then. Either way, I felt like if that was what "good money" got you then I was ok with our cheap stuff.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-28-2008, 02:25 PM:
quote: Geoff Jones
That got me wondering - why don't regular theatres do that? Why aren't there slides bragging about how much better their presentation vs the home?
* Here's how big this movie will be on DVD. (Pic of tiny tv at bottom of screen.)
* Now showing: 35mm film. More resolution, better color, and greater contrast than BluRay DVD!
* Tonight's feature will be presented in 5 gazillion watts of surround sound from 38 speakers (or whatever).
* Etc.
The IMAX Dome at the Museum of Science and Industry used to do that (I don't know if they still do).
They would do a type of a sound check where the speakers behind the screen would be illuminated as that group of speakers was playing something, and each bank of speakers was done in that way.
If I recall correctly, they did something like that with the movie as well. The image started out very small and the voice over talked about that being a standard movie image, and then the image expanded to fill the screen just as the music reached its peak, creating quite a visual and audible sensation.
It demonstrated to the audience that they were going to be experiencing something out of the ordinary, and it worked.
Personally, I would love to see a policy trailer that said straight out that rude patrons would be ejected, and that any technical issues with the presentation should be brought up to the staff for immediate attention.
A little imagination would go a long way to entertain and inform, and even market to audiences.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2008, 07:30 PM:
Something similar was done with a trailer for the 1997 Star Wars reissue...it started with a TV set in the middle of the screen with James Earl Jones talking about a whole generation only experiencing Star Wars "this way...on the TV screen. But if you've only seen it this way, you haven't seen it at all." Then the sound and picture exploded to full size for the actual trailer. It was great.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-28-2008, 07:42 PM:
You sure that was James Earl Jones?
Edit: No, it's not him... Here's the trailer Mike mentioned.
It would've worked better without the fullscreen Fox and Lucas tags on the beginning.
Agree though it's a great trailer. First ran it on the midnight screenings of ID4 (Independence Day, Joe) and when that image appeared of the TV screen they knew what it was straight away. I could hear 750 patrons a-hootin' and a-hollerin' from the booth (and it was very well soundproofed).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2008, 08:50 PM:
Oops, you're right...not James Earl. It's that other guy whose voice is in a million trailers (but I don't know his name). Is he still working?
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-28-2008, 09:12 PM:
quote: Barry Floyd
I have a PDF of it somewhere... if I can find it, I'll post it.
That'd be good to see.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-30-2008, 11:14 AM:
Seeing that Star Wars trailer brought back memories of seeing it in the theater (the trailer)!
That's exactly the kind of thing that we're talking about here. Toot your own horn and lead people by the hand so that they understand what is better about what your theater is able to offer over the home experience and maybe also that theater down the street.
Many people think they have good home theater systems, but many of those systems are in less than ideal conditions using less than ideal equipment. Show them what your big screen and multiple channels of sound can really do and then let them go back home to their Coby home-theater-in-a-box systems with their "big screen" 42" Vizio LCD's in their light-filled living rooms.
While you may not do much to impress the true enthusiasts who have put effort into their systems (nothing made by Coby in my house), you should be able to get your message across to the less apt crowd.
Theaters need to work hard for their audiences, in my opinion, and things like this can help them. But then, a theater that thinks that curtains are too much trouble and too expensive probably aren't going to spring for a unique and interesting policy trailer that does anything more than the generic "silence your cell phones" stuff that everyone has now...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2008, 01:05 PM:
The biggest thing I STILL see wrong with most theater's presentations is that the volume is adjusted for the previews (which are STILL recorded too loud if played at the industry standard 7.0 for features). If the MOVIE isn't played at the proper volume, you can have the best sound systems in the world and the movie just won't have the intended effect because most theaters are too lazy to automate the fader or pay someone to be there to turn it up after the previews are over (which should be played intentionally lower than the feature).
That is the #1 reason why most people seem to think their sound systems at home are better than commercial theaters, because you know damn good and well that people who built themselves a home video theater are going to reach for that remote and set the movie to a suitable volume. At that point, an inferior home system usually will have more impact than a great cinema sound system.
D-Cinema seriously needs to address this and make the Dolby and Doremi servers capable of assigning a fader offset to each trailer since few automations are capable of controlling the fader. Even automations like the DCA21s aren't being wired for fader control in the normal installs I've seen. It's insane.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-15-2008, 05:56 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
Theaters need to work hard for their audiences, in my opinion, and things like this can help them. But then, a theater that thinks that curtains are too much trouble and too expensive probably aren't going to spring for a unique and interesting policy trailer that does anything more than the generic "silence your cell phones" stuff that everyone has now...
I used to think the same thing Scott but have come to the conclusion (from experience) that it is the actual model currently used for cinema (i.e. the multi / megaplex) that mitigates against the kind of terrific experience and great presentation you so eloquently describe.
Rather than it being a case of lack of will on the part of the Exhibitor I think the truth is that the margin just doesn't allow it. You have the huge overhead required to do it right but insufficient income to meet it.
Mike is clearly an exception ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
but with say, 10 screens and up it just seems to be a law of diminishing returns financially.
BTW it'll be interesting to see how Exhibs cope with ever-increasing heating, aircon and general energy costs in the years to come...this could be a "backdoor threat" that could finally do it for the multi / megaplex model.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-18-2008, 11:57 AM:
I understand your point about razor-thin margins, but I don't follow the logic.
If doing something in a one-screen house is a good idea (like curtains, extra attention paid to the experience), it should be just as good for 10 screens. The benefit of the 10-screen situation is economy of scale. Buying 10 sets of curtains should not cost 10 times as much as one set of curtains, should it?
If a theater can't afford to do this in every screen, then they should pick out their top screens (every theater has a few screens that are better than the others in terms of equipment, decorations, seats, etc.) and do it in them. Then, if the idea pays off, they can use the extra revenue and do it on the rest of the screens. At least, they could use the extra money to buy the same wattage light bulbs for their auditoriums so all the lights dim to the same brightness...
Whenever I've broached the idea of doing things as simple as running digital sound and THX trailers, much less using curtains and other more expensive things, I get this blank stare like I have two heads and am speaking in a foreign language that isn't understood by anyone in charge of theaters.
Quite a few chains are starting to open deluxe establishments, where there is reserved seating, in-theater dining, and alcoholic beverages. This stuff can't be cheap, but I'm seeing announcements every week or so of a new one being planned or developed.
I'm not asking for gut-jobs to do such drastic changes, but you would think so considering the response I've received to my ideas in the past. Heck, I can't even get one of the best clients I have to offer an alternative to that crappy nacho cheese substance for their soft pretzel sticks! That stuff is nasty!
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-18-2008, 03:55 PM:
Ya, buying curtains for 10 screens should of course attract a discount but clearly it's the total overhead that's still the stumbling block.
Let's say it costs $ 7000 to install a basic draw curtain set...multiply by 10 = $ 70,000 and let's apply 10% discount to yield $ 63,000.
But there's the rub! Exhib still faces $ 63,000 that cannot in any way be "justified" by revenues. Plus, exhib faces other, increasingly penal "basic" overheads in terms of light, heat, etc.
However - you hit the money with your "top screen" idea.
If theatres initiated a modest "Premiere Screen" concept (giving special treatment for their top screens) they could reap perhaps significant additional patronage in those houses.
As you imply, outlay would be low (even allowing for the maintenance such installs would need) and the cost / benefit ratio would be far greater.
An idea that's clearly there for the taking ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(BTW you are talking a foreign language ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
One must use the "language" of economics and accountancy in these situations...)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-18-2008, 05:20 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
Let's say it costs $ 7000 to install a basic draw curtain set...
Out here in the middle of nowhere it would probably cost double that, due to shipping, mileage, etc. I don't even like reminisching about what we spent for our side curtains/sound panels, and about half of that cost was travel time, mileage and freight. Therein lies the biggest reason we don't have curtains...sad as it is.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-18-2008, 05:36 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
BTW it'll be interesting to see how Exhibs cope with ever-increasing heating, aircon and general energy costs in the years to come...this could be a "backdoor threat" that could finally do it for the multi / megaplex model.
Sadly, I'm afraid that the result may be the opposite of what we both want to see, since old "barn"-type theatres aren't well insulated and can be incredibly expensive to heat, especially if there is a full stage and the fly space isn't sealed up.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-18-2008, 06:53 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Out here in the middle of nowhere it would probably cost double that
My bad, as you would say in the US, for plucking figures out of the ether! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Point taken Scott, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good. However maybe somebody will make a fortune converting cinemas to wood pellet heating systems, CHP, etc., etc.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-25-2008, 03:25 PM:
What you all see as a challenge (heating costs), I see as an opportunity to sell theater-branded sweatshirts, scarves, hats, and mittens!
You could even treat your customers nice by having a clothes dryer handy to warm up their purchase!
All kidding aside, I don't envy businesses with large spaces that they need to heat and cool. The energy bills must be enormous! Has anyone considered putting heat exchangers on their cold air returns and projector exhausts?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2