Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Regal's Amy Miles thinks short windows might be okey-dokey...

This is topic Regal's Amy Miles thinks short windows might be okey-dokey... 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=007489

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-07-2017, 06:34 PM:

Amy, if you'd look beyond your corporate doublespeak gobbledegook buzzword nonsense, you'd realize you're thinking about GRADUALLY TORPEDOING YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Regal CEO Backs Shortened Theatrical Windowing by Major Studios

Regal Entertainment Group CEO Amy Miles on Monday talked up shortened theatrical windows that would see new movies released in homes sooner than within 90 days of a commercial release. But she warned against a premium VOD rollout that wasn't incremental for movie exhibitors and distributors alike.

"There's a lot of things that are very positive from a theatrical perspective, but no one, on our side or in distribution, wants to do anything that has uneconomic cannibalization," the exec told the Deutsche Bank Media & Telecom Conference during a session that was webcast.

Miles confirmed discussions continue between major studios and exhibitors about possibly offering movies in a premium VOD window soon after their cinema run. She added any deal to emerge from those talks cannot eat into the existing theatrical business.

"We both have very much aligned interests to make sure that ... changes happen in a manner where you try to find incremental revenues," Miles told investors. Streaming giant Netflix has changed the way movies get released, bringing them directly to consumer's homes without a theatrical release.

But she argued the theatrical experience is worth preserving, given 2015 and 2016 were record years for Hollywood box office, a feat likely to be repeated this year. "As long as we can find a solution that grows the overall pie, we think it could be good for the overall industry," said the exec.

Added Miles, "We need to be prudent and cautious and ensure as we have these conversations with direct partners, there's no unintended consequences from changed windows."

Hollywood Reporter

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 03-07-2017, 06:59 PM:

Let's see it is reported Ms Miles is compensated over 2 million a year plus stock options nearly equal that. A former executive at Price Watehouse. I am sure AMC CEO is compensated at least the same and he was in the hotel cruise industry. If you have any doubt how this is going to end a look at these two CEO's should give you a clue

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-09-2017, 12:27 AM:

Then studios should do short windows just long enough for her to lose her job! [evil]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-09-2017, 05:48 PM:

Lately, the majority of these releases are suddenly having their legs drop off by the third week and cinemas are taking that drop pretty bad.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-09-2017, 06:01 PM:

I disagree with shortening the window but agree with Monte that it seems like customers have shorter and shorter attention spans, even being in this industry for only 10 years I've seen the decline of how long we've held movies, now in the 3rd week of even a blockbuster hit i'm lucky to see 30 people for a 7pm showing of a movie in it's 3rd week, kids movies get hit especially hard with this drop off for some reason.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-09-2017, 06:17 PM:

Yeah, and what the studios don't recognize is, the drop is because:

a. the studios stop promoting the movie (having focused all their promotion $ on pushing the opening date)

b. people have the perception that the movie is "coming to video pretty soon"

So how will that change when the video date is even sooner than it is now?

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-09-2017, 07:03 PM:

Amy Miles is not an experienced person in our Industry. She worked for an auditing company before working for REG (as mentioned above). I used to dial into the quarterly stock calls and realized the company was being run by "bean counters" and made my exit.

I had a lot of respect for Mike Campbell as he built the company from the ground up and was willing to "roll up his sleeves" and work his tail off to get results.

Since he left, nothing was ever the same.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-09-2017, 09:21 PM:

Are any of the major chains not run by bean counters?

On one hand, reducing the window or doing day/date release with cinemas and the home, maybe it could spur some competition and wipe out a lot of exhibitors that simply put on a bad show. The good ones remain and still continue to make money.

I'm still against it, but it could be the bad medicine a good chunk of this industry probably needs.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-09-2017, 10:47 PM:

Um, no. If the windows are short enough the movie theater industry will be, unequivocally, dead. I would really like to give the average movie-goer the benefit of the doubt that he is picky about theaters providing good showmanship. But I would be dreaming. Unfortunately I really feel the average customer does not give two shits about it. The common long-time joke about theaters has been "throw out lawn chairs, hang a bed sheet in the yard, throw a movie image on it and customers will show up."

Both good movie theaters and bad theaters will both financially implode if the release window is made brief enough. It won't be any "bad medicine" the movie theater industry needs. Overall it would be poison for the entire movie industry. Like I keep saying, if you get rid of the theaters there will be no more movie industry. It's all fucking TV shows after that.

Some people prefer to stay at home watching movies on the TV set in their living rooms. Nevertheless, those same people know they always have the option to pay a little more to see those real movies in a real movie theater. They think they're playing the system watching real movies at home and saving a bunch of money doing so. Once there are no more movie theaters then there will be no attraction to watching those 2 hour programs. They won't be real movies anymore. They'll just be some damned TV shows.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-10-2017, 12:26 AM:

I think the line is already blurred for younger demographics on what a real movie is. To many of them it's just "content". And it's that thinking that has studios salivating to get the content in as many hands as possible as fast as possible.

Frankly, and I hate to say this, going to the movies does not feel as special as it used to. Most films I see are unimaginative, over hyped, and presented in a way that is worse than what I can get at home. Why should I go any longer? Oh, and paying a premium to see it on a large screen just stinks. In a way, I kind of hope some of these chains implode. I hate to see good people in the exhibition industry get hurt by that, but how many good ones are still left? How else do we weed out these piss poor exhibitors that are gouging us for a really third rate experience?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 01:02 AM:

You weed out the poor ones by bringing in better ones.

Carmike was doing an absolutely crappy job in Bozeman, Montana. Cinemark came in, built a beautiful new facility, and within a couple years, ran Carmike out of town. A similar thing happened in Helena. This was before the digital age began, and Carmike theaters in Montana were notoriously hard on film right up until the end...so it was easy for a competitor to outshine them.

I don't know if there was a letter writing campaign, or some Cinemark person happened to vacation in Bozeman and started making phone calls or what, but it happened.

quote: Aaron Garman
it's that thinking that has studios salivating to get the content in as many hands as possible as fast as possible.

Yeah but then the whole "money" issue rears its head again. Young people aren't going to want to spend $50 or whatever to watch a new movie on their devices. They'll turn to piracy in droves rather than pay that much.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-10-2017, 04:05 AM:

In years past, there was always a given segment of the movie-going public who were torn between, should I go see this one at the theatre or wait for it "to come out on DVD." Difference is, back then that DVD choice was very often a pretty nebulous thing -- when was that release going to actually happen...three months, 6 months, a vague point in some very distant future? The fact that release patterns were all over the map could push an undecided over the fence into the "let's go catch it at the cinema" camp.

Well now the studios want to catch those undecideds on the fence and not only are they chomping at the bit to shorten the HV release window, but it seems like they are making a concerted effort to get a firm grip on the "maybe I'll wait for the DVD" crowd. Now they entice with the DVD "pre-order." They are offering DVD/BR pre-orders to the top box office hits WHILE THEY ARE STILL PLAYING THEATRICALLY! Now you can pre-order hit movies that you see up on the theatre marquee.

And once someone has pre-ordered the home video release, even though officially he can't yet get it physically in his hand, he is committed to seeing it at home and no question he's going to wait and no chance any exhibitor will get his ticket purchase. Anyone who pre-ordered LOGAN (4K no less), or MOANA (3D no less) or HACKSAW RIDGE (4K) or MOONLIGHT has committed to home viewing...even if a buddy comes over and says, hey, lets go catch HACKSAW RIDGE at the AMC tonite, that ship has sailed.

But I think the more insidious effect of these pre-paid DVD & BR arrangements is that even if someone doesn't pre-pay for the BR, psychologically now the video release is a FACT...no guess work any more; it's right there in black and white, that the home video release is imminent. That's a sure way to pull the undecided over the fence into the "I'll wait for the DVD" camp.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-10-2017, 05:17 AM:

Still, there are favorite older movies that I have at home that I would still go out and pay to see at a GOOD theater, if any existed in my area. (Part of what I mean by "good" includes a significantly large screen that would never fit in my living room in a billion years, properly proportioned at 2.35 of course.) It seems the chains are doing decent business with "classic" movies lately, even though they're shown in digital letterboxed on medium to small sized screens.

If "movies" of today just become "TV shows", I've got several decades' worth of older movies to catch up on instead.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 03-10-2017, 05:39 AM:

quote: Aaron Garman
Are any of the major chains not run by bean counters?

AMCs Adam Aron worked in tourism, hotels and resorts before going to AMC. When I saw that announcement I thought it was pretty different...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2017, 02:27 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
I think the line is already blurred for younger demographics on what a real movie is. To many of them it's just "content". And it's that thinking that has studios salivating to get the content in as many hands as possible as fast as possible.

Here's the catch with that: "content" is not all the same. Some content is cheap. Other content is expensive. Hollywood movies are traditionally very expensive and more time consuming to produce. Their budgets and production schedules are bigger than TV productions and far bigger than web-based productions.

People in younger demographics groups may not care if they see a certain movie in a movie theater, watch it at home on the TV set or even watch it on a mobile device. However, they do care that they are still watching a movie made to show in theaters. They either appreciate the environment of seeing a movie in a theater or they appreciate the perceived big discount of waiting to watch it at home on TV. Either way they still perceive a certain amount of value in the content they are consuming.

If the content is only made to show on TV screens that perceived value will be far less. It's just a TV show. That's the fatal problem with marginalizing movie theaters. With theaters gone the perception of content value will change. Once that happens we'll kiss goodbye any monster budget movies we're used to seeing made for theaters. You're only going to get so much of a production budget and production schedule for making what amounts to a TV show.

quote: Frank Angel
In years past, there was always a given segment of the movie-going public who were torn between, should I go see this one at the theatre or wait for it "to come out on DVD." Difference is, back then that DVD choice was very often a pretty nebulous thing -- when was that release going to actually happen...three months, 6 months, a vague point in some very distant future? The fact that release patterns were all over the map could push an undecided over the fence into the "let's go catch it at the cinema" camp.

Back in the late 1990's when DVD was first getting launched it was typical for a movie release to take around 9 months to arrive on home video. There were some exceptions, like big tent pole summer movie releases being put out on VHS and DVD in time for Christmas. Again, those were exceptions. Some other movies would go more than a year after theatrical release before arriving on home video. Regardless of those differences back then if someone missed a movie during its theatrical run they would be a waiting a long time to watch it on their square TV screen at home.

Back then it was also common for movies to have significantly longer theatrical runs and then take several more months playing out in the International markets. These days the theatrical release schedule is greatly accelerated. It's now common for movies to be released in North America and dozens of other markets overseas simultaneously. Back then the press hype on movie earnings was all about the final gross figure. Now it's all about opening weekend; people have ADHD when it comes to thinking about final gross tally of any new movie.

quote: Frank Angel
Now they entice with the DVD "pre-order." They are offering DVD/BR pre-orders to the top box office hits WHILE THEY ARE STILL PLAYING THEATRICALLY! Now you can pre-order hit movies that you see up on the theatre marquee.

I think that whole ploy is all about movie studios trying to improve cash flow. Get more money into the coffers up front. But, yeah, the pre-order sales pitch does a lot to get cost conscious customers weighing the choice of seeing the show in a theater versus buying (or merely renting) a disc or download later. Today customers don't have to wait long at all for the video.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 02:43 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If the content is only made to show on TV screens that perceived value will be far less. It's just a TV show. That's the fatal problem with marginalizing movie theaters. With theaters gone the perception of content value will change. Once that happens we'll kiss goodbye any monster budget movies we're used to seeing made for theaters. You're only going to get so much of a production budget and production schedule for making what amounts to a TV show.

I never thought about it before, but maybe that's the plan... they are tired of spending $175 million dollars to make movies that gross $42 million, so they're going to use this "plan" to phase those big budget blockbusters out and save big bucks. Who knows, goofier things have happened.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2017, 02:45 PM:

Those efforts to save big bucks funding big budget epic movies will just cannibalize their movie business overall. Who is going to be willing to spend premium prices just to watch a TV show?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 02:55 PM:

Almost nobody, but if the big budgets go away they'll be able to lower the prices. Of course there'll be a lot less money floating around Hollywood, but nobody's thought that far ahead I guess.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-10-2017, 06:08 PM:

Will this save the industry?

Midwest's first 4DX movie theater makes dramatic debut in Gurnee
4DX movie theater

“The Midwest’s first 4DX location” is at Marcus Gurnee Cinema. (Courtesy of CJ 4DPlex)
Dan MoranDan MoranContact ReporterNews-Sun
Privacy Policy

If you've been holding on to your last $19.75 to watch a movie while being sprayed in the face with water and sitting in a chair that not only pitches but also rolls and heaves, you no longer have to travel to Cinemaximum Marmara Forum in Turkey or the Cinema City Langham Place in Hong Kong to live your dream.

Humble Gurnee, known as recently as the early 1970s for its obscurity, has been tapped to host "the Midwest's first 4DX location" — and only the second such cinematic venue in America, behind another village you might have heard of called Los Angeles.

What exactly is this "4DX," you might ask?

Short answer: Much like 3D, only with an additional D. And also with an X, which is young-people talk for "extreme."

The longer answer is that you, the more demanding moviegoer, sit in a densely padded seat that can be fairly described as a cross between a barber's chair and Capt. Kirk's command chair. When you watch a movie presented in three-dimensional format, this seat will bounce along with the proceedings, reacting to everything from violent actions to sudden outbreaks of noise to the low rumble of the Lucasfilm logo arriving on screen.

Off to the side, a rack of fans mounted on the walls will toss your hair should a windstorm sweep in. Lights will flash if the weather turns even more foul. And, yes, in front of you, nozzles embedded in the back of your fellow moviegoer's chair will release bursts of mist — sometimes scented — as the narrative might demand.
4DX movie seats
Seats in the new 4DX screening room at the Marcus Gurnee Cinema not only pitch but also roll and heave in concert with actions during a 3D movie. (Dan Moran / Lake County News-Sun)

As described by the official literature from CJ 4DPLEX, the international company behind this latest wave, 4DX is "advancing the moviegoing experience from watching a movie to almost living it."

Another description of this 4DX might be drawn from Nigel Tufnel when he so famously described his speakers that go to 11 in "This Is Spinal Tap."

"Well, it's one louder, isn't it?" Tufnel said.

If you've been to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, you might have taken in the 4D experience of "Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure" or "Spongebob Squarepants." If you've been to Disneyworld's Hollywood Studios, you've felt Darth Vader force-pull your chair during "Star Tours." Even here at home, Six Flags Great America had the old Space Shuttle America motion-simulator ride before it was mothballed in 2007.

At a media screening this week at the Marcus Gurnee Cinema, CJ 4DPLEX chief content officer Sang Cho was asked how those theme-park attractions differ from seeing, say, "San Andreas" or "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials" or any of the 78 films released this year alone in 4DX.

"It's similar, I would say, in that the principles are the same," he said. "You're immersing yourself into five different senses — not only what's on the screen, but also in motion and environmental effects that you get in the movie itself.

"The big difference is that we still make sure that the movie itself is the featured player, and all the environmental and motion effects work in concert with it to give you the immersiveness. It doesn't take away from the moviegoing experience."

The experience provided on Thursday in Gurnee was "In the Heart of the Sea," the new Ron Howard more-or-less fact-based seafaring adventure starring Thor, a.k.a. Chris or possibly Liam Hemsworth.
You're immersing yourself into five different senses -- not only what's on the screen, but also in motion and environmental effects that you get in the movie itself. — Sang Cho

What was it like to chase after whales and be attacked by them in 4DX?

Often stunning.

What was it like to roll with the waves at all times, including when idling in a lifeboat?

Occasionally distracting, or at least enough to welcome the frequent returns to Nantucket.

It is fair to say that 4DX delivers its goods enough to become an option for event-style movies, like a certain little film coming up next week called "Star Wars" or something. But will the masses line up to pay concert-level prices to see something like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Trip" on a regular basis?

As with anything else in America, you'll get what you pay for, in more ways than one. Four-dimensional ways, in this case.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-10-2017, 06:42 PM:

The industry has accepted the digital revolution without capitalising on one of its prime benefits: the print does not have to stay in a cinema for its entire run.
A big problem with theatrical exhibition is that many cinemas do not show the best movies, despite the fact that they have plenty of screen space. Prequels, sequels and remakes can become pretty tiresome. In many territories, this is the only choice. Often, the public thinks that they have already seen the movies on offer.
There are excellent US independent movies and the rest of the world produces interesting movies. Because they get limited theatrical release, they are usually not generally available in the after- market.
Many cinemas can not take a financial risk on any of these movies and their distributors act as if they are still sending film prints.
Imagine our industry making a concerted effort to release some of the better movies in a novel way.
The distributor sends a release plan to the nation’s exhibitors, asking them to set aside 2 or 3 sessions (not 3 or 4 weeks) for an upcoming release. With a critical mass in place, the distributor can organise publicity. The DCPs are sent as soon as the first acceptances are received, with the instruction to ingest immediately and forward to the next exhibitor (so that there is not too much investment in physical media).
Initially, these movies will not make exhibitors rich but their risk will not be great. In some markets, many of these would work, requiring repeat screenings.
The trick is that audiences will be exposed to interesting movies and cinemas can boast a wider audience, which has growth potential. Major studios could try this plan with some of their good product that only ever gets capital city release.
Worth a try.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2017, 06:55 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Will this save the industry?

I wasn't aware the industry needed "saving."

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 03-11-2017, 03:50 PM:

It may need saving from the eggheads currently running the industry.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2017, 09:39 PM:

quote: Ron Curran
A big problem with theatrical exhibition is that many cinemas do not show the best movies, despite the fact that they have plenty of screen space. Prequels, sequels and remakes can become pretty tiresome. In many territories, this is the only choice. Often, the public thinks that they have already seen the movies on offer.

One big problem with that: very few people in the general public will show up when the theater actutally tries playing movies different from the usual big studio derivative crap. I live in a small city whose theaters are limited to the usual big studio movies. People here complain all the time about movies that "never came" to Lawton. Those same people don't really pay attention to the theater listings. Or if they do notice an indie, art house or foreign movie playing they don't look up anything about it. They only tend to show up for movies with big advertising budgets. Basically it's a catch-22 situation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-12-2017, 09:56 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Lately, the majority of these releases are suddenly having their legs drop off by the third week and cinemas are taking that drop pretty bad.

That's exactly what happens when you have a movie play on multiple screens for the first week. A town of 40,000 people that want to see that movie have already seen it during that first week and then it drops off sharply. It has to do with the fact that most cities are way way over screened.

Mark

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 03-12-2017, 11:35 AM:

Exactly two many screens and we now open most movies on Thursday and if it looks like any kind of interest they blow it out on a Thursday on multiple screens and wonder why there is no one coming after two weeks. Case in point when the Twilight series was coming out the local Carmike 9 plex had it on all 9 screens on Thursday. Then after a week the complaint is that its one of those movies that base only comes the first night or two then drops.