| Message/Author |
|
|
 Alex Gullo posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 08:04 am
|
|
|
Large format industry needs to have more locations on the circuit, so investments can take less time to be returned, for everyone, and films may "upgrade" their quality.
To the other hand, better quality films will bring more people to theatres, that means building more new theatres.
I think that, for having really commercial films, we'll have to wait another one, two years: when a major studio will see a 400 theatres network around the world, probably he will decide to make heavier investments in lf films.
I'm a student from Italy and I'm writing my tesi on the large format industry: I'd like to have some of your comments about this aspect.
Thanks,
Alex |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 08:37 am
|
|
|
I disagree with the notion that there needs to be a large format theater in every city. Some people do think this is the answer: to put one everywhere, and thus give Hollywood something to aim for (as they won't delve into making large-format feature films unless they can get wide release). But I don't. I think it's the opposite problem: by building too many theaters, they're oversaturating the market and making the product more "average" (just like, by shrinking the screens for 3DSR, they're making the product more average).
Ten years ago, there were less than 70 theaters, and it was a big deal for tourists to go to a town with an Imax; they would go out of their way to see it. But now, when there's an Imax almost everywhere, why bother to go out of your way and get excited about the presence of one?
It's also limiting the business because people may be spending their money elsewhere. Now you hear a lot more comments like, "Oh, are you running that film here? Isn't that old? I saw it last year in another city."
Disney had the same problem with their retail stores. A scant 12 years ago, you couldn't buy Disney merchandise unless you were at a theme park (or Sears). Then they built a few Disney Stores in major metropolitan areas, and it was a huge deal. A Disney Store! A place where you could buy Disney things! People would come from all around to go to a store. Now, fast-forward ten years: there's a Disney Store in every single mall, and when they see one shoppers now get about as excited as if it's McDonald's. "A Disney Store? Big deal, they're everywhere." As a result, the stores have gone from a major asset to the ignominious point of being sold to someone outside of Disney. Take note, Imax.
More theaters are not what is needed. Better films are what's needed. Hollywood films. But this half-baked "F2K" thing may screw that up as well. (The 3D theaters may succeed for a while, but it's still more of a gimmick than a medium, and I don't really think 3D will ever be anything more than a tourist/niche market.) So we'd better hope that McGillivray finds another "Everest" to climb, because personally I don't see much other hope for the non-3D theaters. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 02:39 pm
|
|
|
| Was the last posting written by someone at MacGillivray Freeman, or what? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 02:47 pm
|
|
|
| I would give Mac/Freeman a little more credit than that! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 03:07 pm
|
|
|
| MacGillivray Freeman deserve a great deal of credit. They have created some of this industry's finest films and are true leaders. It just seemed that the posting recommending less theaters and more Mac/Freeman type films was perhaps a bit single minded. Growth is what every industry is about. Not unlimited or unchecked growth, but growth and diversity nonetheless. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 03:08 pm
|
|
|
| PS - definitely more films !!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 11:24 am
|
|
|
| As the anonymous poster of that message, I can assure you that I don't work for MF. All I was doing was using "Everest" as an example, as it was a very large moneymaker. Next time, why don't you all try responding to the meat of a post instead of making useless snippy comments. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 11:51 am
|
|
|
"snippy" ...... is that a real word?
Lighten up last poster and read again the anonymous posting on Wednesday, September 8, 1999 - 04:07pm: |
|
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what the question is. I believe that large investments already are being made in 1570 films, and I believe that quality films already do exist for the format.
Judging from the above responses, the issue seems to be "what factors control when 1570 films with substantial 'hollywood' plots and genrous SFX are going to be steadily produced?" Is this a correct intrepretation? |
|
|
|
|
| One thing that tends be overlooked is the fact that major Hollywood production companies are investing in large format production. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the large studios (ie. Disney, Fox, Paramount) and overlooking companies like Mandalay and Kennedy/Marshall that already have established successes in conventional cinema. With these independents producing, big name directors being brought onto the projects, and more cineplex chains adding large format, the medium will migrate more towards Hollywood entertainment trends. It is important, though, to make a deliniation between commercial entertainment and educational product. While F2K may succeed in both a commercial and institutional venue, an action film would not be appropriate in an institution. Because of this, we should be thankful that companies with established track records in documentary production have started producing large format (WGBH, Discovery Communications, National Geographic). We've finally reached a point where both institutional and commercial product are being produced by quality film production companies and thus the need for more of both types of theaters. |
|
|
| Jim Walker posted on Thursday, September 30, 1999 - 10:36 am
|
|
|
As an operator of an institutional (Science Center) large-format theater, I am glad to see the increased numbers of commercial theaters in the world-wide marketplace and the accompanying increas in production of "entertainment only" films. Now, for the first time in many years, film producers and makers are able to concentrate on makeing films that are pure entertainment or documentary. This means that the enteratinment-oriented and the documentary films being produced are of a greater quality and focus than we have seen in quite a while. We can hope that the days of "crossover" films, that hope to play equally well to multiplex and museum patrons, are over.
Entertainment in itself is not a bad thing. On the contrary, the best documentary films (in this format or any other) are highly entertaining. However, even our visitors know when the information in a film is secondary to the thrill value, and they respond accordingly. Increasingly, our audiences are asking for films with more "meat" and less (in the words of a recent guest) "eye candy". Simillarly, when we recently ran a film that was obvious in its entertainment level, visitors complaind about "too much talking" and not enough excitement.
I can only hope that the increased diversity in our industry brings increased quality and quantity of GOOD films. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, September 30, 1999 - 11:44 am
|
|
|
| To the last posting. Although there will likely be more and more distinction between "entertainment" and "education" type films as time goes on and I agree, a possible reduction in cross over films, I do not believe that all audiences want increased educational (read: voice of god narration) content, or "meat" as you put it. I believe that audiences want to be entertained first and foremost and if that is successful, be it from a documentary, story driven, musical or horror film, the potential for them to be educated goes up considerably. By contrast, we do not need films that are over burdened with informational facts, delivered by a narrator, throughout the entire 40 minute experience. I also feel that if we educate audiences too hard they will not come back even if the information was excellent. These theaters are not classrooms, they are light, family entertainment environments that are either extensions of museum missions or 100%- for- profit venues. Whichever they are, they need to be well filled or they will fail. Our industry has historically been too hung up on making these films serve everyone, everywhere. We should just try to make good, well written, entertaining films be they any genre. If audiences have a good experience, if they laugh, if they cry, even if they get a little woozy, they will probably learn something too. |
|
|
| Alex Gullo posted on Friday, October 01, 1999 - 10:04 am
|
|
|
To the last two postings,
I think that's a very interesting point.
What do you think about the word "educational"?
In my opinion there are actually two meanings for this word: the first is the one Jim Walker talked about.
It happens when people learn something from a lf film, be it scientific, naturalistic, about space or anything else.
The other meaning concerns everything that has some educational aspects, even if they are not the star of the film; we can say that this second category includes everything is not violent or dangerous for children.
We sure consider a Walt Disney film educational, even if it doesn't talk about the "DNA", or the first man on the moon.
A question for the institutional exhibitors: why don't you consider the possibility to include in your schedule some commercial films?
For example, educational films in the morning and during the day, while the last two shows could be commercial films.
This could be an interesting differentiation strategy, considering that other institutional sites could not have an Imax theatre inside their structures.
For you who have it, why not improve his potential value? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
