Single screen booking: Not for the faint of heart

[Mike Blakesley]

So this year we have:

Wicked For Good - November 21
Zootopia 2 - November 26
Avatar Fire and Ice - December 19

Of course the sane thing would have been to schedule them all two weeks apart, but that would make too much sense. Instead of that, the studios want 3 weeks for all of the movies if you want to open them on the break...so we had to pick between Zootopia 2 and Wicked For Good.

We decided to go with Zootopia 2 on the break. In retrospect I'm not sure that was a good decision, given the amount of business WFG is doing -- and the critics are being mean to it, so it'll probably drop like a rock after next week.

If Zootopia 2 calms down somewhat in week 2, we might be able to get out of it, which would give us one week before Avatar Fire and Ice. But, if we bring in Wicked For Good then, and it does super, we won't be able to get out of it for Avatar the next week. So you'd think we'd be able to delay starting Avatar for a week and start it on the 26th, but here's the really dumb part: If we play Wicked on the 12th and it does super and we wind up having to keep it a second week, Disney WILL NOT GIVE US AVATAR:FIRE AND ICE until the next "avail" which will probably be sometime in January.

So, to protect Avatar's opening, we'll probably wind up keeping Zootopia 2 for a crappy week 3, and either playing Wicked For Good in mid-January after Avatar ends, or (if Universal has flushed it down the video toilet by then), not playing it at all.

The other possibility is going ahead with Wicked For Good either on the 12th or the 19th, playing it for 2 weeks and waiting for Avatar in January -- which might make more sense than opening it on the break, considering how well Wicked is doing. But then Disney will probabliy still want 2 or 3 weeks from Avatar even in January, but it will only do about half of the business, so it might not make sense to play it.

So the bottom line is, Disney, Universal, and we will all make less money from us because the studios are so inflexible on how they distribute their product... but in two months all of it will be available where everyone can watch it on their phones or shitty little TVs for next to nothing with no restrictions or standards of any kind.

Sometimes the goofiness of this business just makes me tired.

[Mike Blakesley]

I thought I would update this thread. After I'm dead and gone, people can read it and laugh at how stupid studio booking policies are.

Turns out Zootopia 2 DID calm down quite a bit in its second week (not just here, but everywhere) so we were able to end it.

Tried to book Wicked For Good for one week so we could play it in the week leading up to Avatar Fire & Ash, but Universal would rather pass on us than take a one-week booking. So, a net loss to both us and Universal. Thanks, Universal.

Then looked into running Wicked for two weeks and starting Avatar Fire & Ash a week off the break, on the 26th, but Disney won't make it "available" again until after the 4th week of release. So, with nothing else to fill this open week, we decided on: Predator: Badlands.

The whole practice of not making titles "available" until after some pre-determined magical date is ludicrous. We had to pass on Wicked For Good to start with because of it. If we could have booked Wicked for 2 weeks, then Zootopia 2 (one week after the break) for 2 weeks, we could have played right into Avatar and had SIX SOLID WEEKS of killer business. Instead, Wicked (if we play it in January) will do a third of the business it would have done, and we'll have at least 3 weeks of subaverage business over the holiday season. All thanks to stupid policies that are older than dirt.

.

[Mike Blakesley]

We now have Wicked For Good booked on 1/9 after Avatar 3 ends. It'll play for one week, probably. So we'll do so-so business on that movie, when we could have done great business if we could have played it on the break, and very good business if we'd been able to do one week on the 12th. As it is, their booking policies have probably cost both us and them at least a grand or two. I'll have a better handle after we play Wicked on the 9th.

This is a textbook case for why studios need to be more flexible with small exhibitors. I'd like to hear one solid sensible reason why they can't be.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd like to hear one solid sensible reason

I think I've found the flaw...solid, sensible or even reason seems to have escaped leadership.

I don't consider it ever a good time to impose stupid policies meant, primarily, to be heavy handed and consistent. But, when times are difficult, being nimble to find the best solutions is what companies/people should be doing. That is how one survives.

Theatres are going to try to do what is in their best interest (make more money)...which, in turn, makes the studios more money. There is no way a studio (or booker) knows the audience better than the owner/operator of their theatre, particularly an independent that is actually living in the community that the theatre operates. The closer the business becomes nothing more than a line on a spreadsheet with P&L columns, the less in-touch that entity is.

[Ed Gordon]

Hollywood has never been an "in-touch entity". Now that the bean-counters are in charge, the business model has become "make as much money as quickly as you can". When Hollywood moved from limited release over a longer period of time to wide release when Jaws was released the game changed. Whether selling exhibition rights to a single streaming company rather than multiple exhibitors makes more money in the long run is not a consideration for the bean counters.

image.png

[Steve Guttag]

Just about from the start, the "bean counters" have been what has ruled Hollywood. If the business doesn't make money, it doesn't survive. The bean counters can't generate ideas but they can try and maximize wealth of ideas.

Now, what you may claim is that there are fewer innovators/creatives with enough clout to get their movies made and on their own terms. Nobody pops out of film-school or like background and is handed the keys to the kingdom. George Lucas, out of film-school got to make a flop, THX-1138 and didn't get to make anything else for Warner Brothers again. He also needed someone with credibility to back him some, like Coppola. American Graffiti was Universal and what was his budget? Under $1M (and is one of the most profitable movies ever). He didn't have final cut (something that always irked him). With that success, did Universal or even WB want to make his space thing, Star Wars? Nope. He had to shop that around too, even with a big success (so, he was batting 50%). Even after getting Fox to agree to make the movie, he was under a strict budget (that, like many movies...crept up). However, the previous year's "Sci-Fi" move, Logan's Run, that was based off of a successful book and having a popular leading man, at the time (Michael York) was in the $8M or so range. Depending on your sources, Star Wars, a year later had $9.8M and maybe as much as $11M. He was not given a huge budget for what he was creating. No bean counter would be thinking that they were going to change the entire industry and how movies would be seen, attended, made. They saw a production going off the rails and they wanted their damn movie in theatres to cut their losses. There is nothing new to the "bean counters." Lucas was the one that bet on himself in giving up pay in order to secure merchandizing rights and sequel rights...things that "bean counters" would have considered very low-value, in the era. But just like his movie making was innovative, so was his eye towards what was valuable.

"Bean counters" follow trends...they look at spreadsheets and graphs and follow trends. If something goes in a direction, they think it will continue in that direction rather than trying to change direction but to do that, you need creatives to change the game.

This business of narrowing/evaporating release windows has NEVER paid off. The best that they can hope for is to claim that had they not sold the streaming right when they did, they would have made less money on the rights and less money in the theatres. They have no proof of that and no graph backs the claim up. As windows have narrowed, so has the profitability of feature films. To not see the correlation is to be absolutely blind. They hit their hand with a hammer and wonder why they are in pain and then accept the pain is normal and unavoidable rather than change the course or, in my opinion, look back to what has worked and see the correlation of shrinking windows equates to shrinking profits on all titles...even and especially the big ones.

Star Wars played over a year in theatres. It didn't hurt its, eventual, home rights either (it was before home video rental era as VCRs were very new and the industries saw them as the enemy to copyright). Movies don't lose value in theatres. Their sell-by date starts when they become available in the home. They all become fungible sub-run, regardless of their budget spent.

Now, where I think the "Bean Counters" could help with the industry is really putting the hammer on movies that go above 2-Hours and even 90-minutes. I'm not saying that we can't have epics. I'm saying that as you go above 90-minutes, you should need to justify its length a bit...and then at the 2-hour mark, the justification should dramatically increase...and then start to compel an intermission above a certain mark, say 3 to 3.5-hours. Creatives run-amuck can be their own worst enemy too. Most great movies are made as much in the editing room as they are on set. Even Star Wars was made in the editing room as much as in the VFX or on-set. Directors that get this 3+ hour things hurt themselves and the industry too. It also gets fewer showings/day which can lower the gross. People don't want to be checking their watches/phones while being entertained.

[Ed Gordon]

Now, where I think the "Bean Counters" could help with the industry is really putting the hammer on movies that go above 2-Hours and even 90-minutes.

I agree with that completely! However, that would be the end of Martin Scorsese's career.

A new study by Talker Research has revealed that American audiences have a sweet spot when it comes to movie length: 92 minutes. This is according to a survey conducted online in April 2024 with over 2,000 participants.

Among those surveyed, only a small fraction, just two percent, believed that a movie should be longer than two and a half hours. Most respondents thought 92 minutes—a little over an hour and a half—was the “ideal average length.” Additionally, only 15 percent of participants preferred movies that lasted two hours or longer. Twenty-three percent admitted that, in the past 60 days, they had “reluctantly sat through three or more movies that they felt were too long.“

And, Scorsese has always defended this long running time. His recent movie Killers of the Flower Moon starring Leonardo DiCaprio faced a little bit of criticism for its length. But he in an interview with The Hindustan Times found it hard to digest audiences’ logic.

“People say it’s three hours, but come on,” Scorsese said. “You can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours. Also, there are many people who watch theatre for 3.5 hours. There are real actors on stage, you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect, give cinema some respect.”

Source: https://cinetitbit.com/editorial/ide...movies-length/

I watched his The Irishman for 3 1/2 hours and enjoyed it. At home. With a remote for fast forward and pause. My bladder has no pause option.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I think 90 to 120 minutes is the appropriate length for a movie. If you get much shorter than that, it's just a TV show.

[Steve Guttag]

There is something to the 80-minute movie that feels like it is over right after it starts yet a 90 minute movie can feel complete. I believe it was Rocky IV that was under 90-minutes and just felt like a "give me your money; next" sort of movie. Early in my projecting career, I remember showing a movie Firecracker and looking at the reels and thinking "That's it?" I showed a bunch of 5-reelers that were nominally 90-minutes and the length felt about right. 2-hour movies also, most feel about right. To use my example movie, Star Wars was about the 2-hour mark (all three of the originals). It would be hard to cut them down without cutting into story and pace/character development. And that should be the goal. Every scene...every take should have to justify its existence in the finished product.

How many "DVD Extras" where cut scenes were shown did you think...boy had they left that in, the movie would have been better! Almost none, for me. Then again, one of my most favorite movies of all time is Cinema Paradiso. There is a DVD release of it with the original cut that is MUCH longer but it also develops a relationship that is not there in the theatrical cut. Could they have left that part of the storyline in? Yes but I suspect it would not have done as well theatrically. It's a big ask for people sit in a theatre that long to be "entertained." They could have kept it in and done an intermission but again, would the feature have done as well? I'm glad I have both versions and appreciate both.

Again, I'm good with the occasional epic 3+ hour movie...but the deal the bean counters should make with the creative is...once you go over a set length, you HAVE to have an intermission. You are, basically, putting part 1 and part 2 on a single ticket with a brief respite between them (15-minutes or so). There are a lot of directors that are as good or better than you (and I don't care who you are) that made movies with intermissions that didn't detract from their movie. I'd say a movie with an intermission gives it prestige.

[Tj Hopland]

basically, putting part 1 and part 2 on a single ticket with a brief respite between them (15-minutes or so)

You would think if there was 3 hours + of decent content they would want to split it into 2 (or more) movies and split em by weeks or months. Seems like that would be more tickets sold directly plus if they got any side hustles going should keep the name / brand in the public eye for longer so more money for everyone involved.

[Ryan Gallagher]

General public, when wincing about runtime, if it has any bearing/timing related to the potential ticket sale….are often reacting to the TOTAL runtime “number”.

Epics, action movies, and animations, among others, all tend to have rather epic length credits and crawls too…. Sometimes you could shave 25min off an advertised runtime if the practices shifted to advertising picture runtime. The people who stay for credits will still stay for credits, fear not directors and creatives.

If they are contemplating any other source such as a review or word of mouth, and the feeling is still in the “too long” camp, then it probably was in fact too long, and that perspective prob already excludes credits inherently.

Put another vote down for intermissions, with a couple caveats, ideally spaces and rooms would be more universally set up to do them “well”. If it is a 2 min walk to the bathrooms or concessions add 4 min etc. If you want to do them a lot put in a screen drape of some kind.

The intermission may not detract for the experience for most, but a blank screen under house lights or a hastily created intermission card might. ;-)

It should be noted that intermissions make a ton of money at concessions too. (We still show such classic films so have reference). Including them again would be doing the exhibition industry a solid on their bottom line, and many agreements funnel some of that to studios too.

[Mike Blakesley]

There is something to the 80-minute movie that feels like it is over right after it starts yet a 90 minute movie can feel complete.

I think the shortest movie I ever ran was "Rock-A-Doodle," a 74-minute animated turkey from the mid-70s. I remember it being five reels, but the end-credits began in reel four! I believe it was the only print I ever ran that had a changeover in the credits. The actual body of the movie was only something like 62 minutes long.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Oscar for the shortest feature ever?

There were, in fact. a few people that left the room after a few minutes. Not sure because they "fell for it" or they didn't like what they were seeing.

[Mike Blakesley]

The intermission may not detract for the experience for most, but a blank screen under house lights or a hastily created intermission card might.

There's no reason a skilled filmmaker can't design his proceedings to where an intermission wouldn't "detract." TV people can do it in their sleep, and pretty much every filmmaker these days has TV experience. Then all they need to do is create the DCP as a part 1/part 2 two-fer. If a theater didn't want to do an intermission, just program the two parts to play back to back.

Of all the problems this industry has, this one seems like the easiest to solve, and it would cost next to nothing....OK, there might be some extra cost for making two DCPs, but in a $300 million movie I can't imagine it would be all that big a deal.

[Steve Guttag]

Compare that cost to the cost of how many versions of Avatar?