| Message/Author |
|
|
|
|
Last week I learned that Discovery pulled the plug on Discovery Pictures. For our theaters Omniversum, The Hague and IMAX Rotterdam DP was a fantastic partner and a partner we would have liked to keep for the future. Africa's Elephant Kingdom has been our best film for the past 6 years in attendance and audience appreciation. Are we paying the producers to low a fee for these films? Probably, but I'm afraid we can't spare anything more since IMAX theaters have a huge overhead.
What can we do to keep new producers in our business. With all the films being produced there will be more producers leaving after one or two films. |
|
|
 Mark Katz posted on Wednesday, November 03, 1999 - 12:44 pm
|
|
|
This is unfortunate news indeed. Discovery Channel Pictures raised the bar for all producers and distributors with regards to marketing, publicity and promotion of large format films. More than once I have heard exhibitors say, "make the marketing package like Discovery's". On a personal note, I wish their large format team good luck and hope they stay close to our industry.
Berend is right, it would not be good if this became a trend. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, November 03, 1999 - 02:38 pm
|
|
|
| This is an interesting development since, when I decried the rise of 3D theaters and "entertainment-oriented" films in regards to the future of science museums and their Domes, I was told, "Oh, don't worry about it, with production companies like MacGillivray-Freeman and Discovery Pictures, and museums like Minnesota and Houston producing films, there'll always be plenty of good material available." Hmmm.... Discovery is a big player in the education market, through their cable channels and mall stores. If THEY couldn't even see an educational future in LF, what does that say? |
|
|
|
|
Without a doubt this news represents a significant loss to the industry. With it's gorgeous rock-steady close ups, highly cohesive plot (often rare in LF films), gently anthropomorphic story line, and careful use of the giant screen, Africa's Elephant Kingdom puts many a LF documentary to shame. Hopefully other filmmakers will recognize that the demise of Discovery Pictures had nothing to do with the quality of product--a production company would do well to snag the brains behind AEK.
I imagine that it must be very difficult for a production company to start making LF films this late in the game. Unlike most of the 35mm entertainment industry, LF films are played seemingly forever. Fortunately (of unfortunately depending on you point of view), LF prints played in a competent theatre can last forever (unlike 35mm prints which are fit to be trashed after a about a week past the opening night), and the content in documentaries rarely goes out of style. Due to that, new films must compete not only with other new films, but also with nearly every film previously produced for the format. Companies that have been involved in LF since the early days of 1570 still make royalties from films they shot years ago, while companies without that benefit must rely solely upon how their first films do.
I don't believe Discovery's change of heart will destroy educational LF film, nor does it necessarily mean that Discovery decided LF documentaries weren't feasible. I think it's a mistake to assume that education can't be entertaining, or that educational films can't have a place in commercial LF theatres. LF has always been about taking audiences to places that they've never been, while typical Hollywood fare has become devoted to visiting the same tired places repeatedly. So long as there are interesting new things to film in documentaries, typical commercial entertainment films will have a hard time overthrowing good educational productions.
Perhaps the trend of entertainment oriented LF films will strengthen the documentary industry; after all, boring LF documentaries are almost as bad as mindless entertainment films--at least entertainment will bring institutions money and customers. With the competition of pure entertainment, documentary makers might stop generating films that seem to solely consist of narrated blocks of film thrown together under some broad topic. Judging by our common interest in 1570.com, I'd imagine most of us would agree that a well-made documentary can be far more entertaining and compelling than a lame entertainment film that just happens to use LF as it's gimmick--the trick lies in convincing the customers of that.
Does anyone have any more information on Discovery's defection? Is this a sure thing, or merely a rumor? |
|
|
|
|
| It's a sure thing, confirmed by the people of Discovery Pictures |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Thursday, November 04, 1999 - 08:26 am
|
|
|
| I would be interested to know the "whys" of this. Can anyone say the reasons they pulled out? Did they not think it was financially feasible? Did they think their potential territory in LF was already being covered by other entrepeneurs like M-F and Houston/Minnesota? Or was this strictly an internal political thing within their organization? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, November 04, 1999 - 09:15 am
|
|
|
What can we do to keep new producers in our business?
Don't give 100% of your programming to one 35mm film...
Just a thought! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, November 04, 1999 - 04:48 pm
|
|
|
Discovery Pictures is only the beginning...
Not only that...A few exhibition companies are throwing in their towels too.
The LF industry has become EXTREMELY VOLATILE.
Competition and saturated markets are driving ticket prices down and films still cost the same to make.
Brand new "Suburban" theaters are opening to audiences that don't even pay for the building's electricity.
Discussions of Digital Cinema entering into LF within 10 years is causing some to be nervous.
Things are not all good. There needs to be a serious discussion about this. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, November 11, 1999 - 10:32 pm
|
|
|
It is a real shame about Discovery exiting the business. Unfortunately, the shakeout has only just begun. Why? The business model simply doesn't work for LF film(assuming a producer who has only license fee revenues from the film to gain, and no other benefits to justify the investment (eg. hardware royalties) and no "free" money to pay for it in the first place (eg. grants or cash sponsors).
Everyone in this industry should do the math. A "typical" "successful" 2D film, booked by 100 theatres who have attendance to the film of 70,000 per theatre, and pay a license fee of $0.80 per head, on average, will not return more than about $3.5 - 3.7 million in net license fees (after distribution costs, about 30% - 35% of license fees, plus pre-distribution of $500K) to pay back the investment. That means a producer cannot even break even on the negative cost (and not counting cost of money, overheads, etc.) unless he can make a "successful" film (remember, he MUST get 100 leases) for less than $3.5 million. Hardly.
Maybe the salvation wlll be sponsorship. Any other ideas? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, November 12, 1999 - 12:21 pm
|
|
|
| No, but it seems like a few companies make some good jack and the rest of the 1570 world is eating table scraps. For example, Imax makes a nice tidy wad; it's pretty cool to charge someone the full cost of the equipment, but they don't get to keep it, AND you get yearly service contracts in five figures. Likewise for the films themselves, where you pay for the cost of making the print, but it's not really yours--so, you pay 20 grand, but don't get to keep it, and when you're done with the film they take that print (which YOU paid for) and turn around and sell it used for 10 grand in profit. Nice! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, November 12, 1999 - 01:15 pm
|
|
|
Calm down all you cynics. It may be depressing out there at times, but its not as bad as you think and not as bad as the last two postings suggest. I am not going to comment on the hardware suppliers issues. However, related to film I will say that firstly, when it comes to recycling prints, distributors do not re-sell prints and pocket 100% of the money. There are refurbishing costs which could be significant if a print is damaged, shipping costs, soundtrack costs and preview shipping costs. Also, when a distributor sells a print for $20,000 that includes soundtracks (which with the influx of DVD now runs close to $2000 for 2 or 3 tracks) plus shipping. Also with regard to preview screenings, very few exhibitors pay for shipping. It is usually 100% on the distributors nickel. So there goes that stupid myth.
Secondly, with regards to film return models, it is definitely tough for producers, no question, but whichever producers are allowing distributors to get 35% or more from licensing revenues deserve to lose money. If a distributor is not putting any money into the production, there is no reason for that distributor to net more than 25% after re-cooping their marketing outlay. That 10% difference could put as much as $500,000 more in the producer's pocket which although not overwhelming is still $500,000.
So all you doomsday predictors, we should be smarter about how we produce our films and how we finance them. 2D films should not cost more than $4-5 million and 3D not more than $6-7 million. If they do they should not be made. It is not going to be easy going forward even with the increasing number of theaters coming on line, but the demise of large format is not coming either.
Sincerely,
An eternal large format optimist on a Friday afternoon. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, November 12, 1999 - 01:20 pm
|
|
|
Some of the best dialogue about our industry happens here. This shit is great! Everyone please keep posting with good stories and bad.
Three cheers for Brian D! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, November 13, 1999 - 12:48 pm
|
|
|
It is not as bad as you think… Well think again! It is actually much worse than most people will admit it.
Discovery - Losses: probably over $10 million
Discovery did raise the bar with regards to marketing, but what good is a great marketing package when the films are just average. Their first film was OK (but OK is not good enough anymore), their second film was less than memorable. Both titles have barely grossed $20 million worldwide to date. Netting Discovery less than $2,5 million. Discovery must have invested more than $15 million (production cost, overhead, marketing…). Why would they keep on wasting their time in the LF industry?
Imax – Losses: Close to $20 million (film library write-off, earlier this year)
Even a successful film like T-Rex will never break-even with a budget in the neighborhood of $15 million. Imax seems to have learned its lesson. They don’t have much in production to speak of.
Sony – Pictures - Losses: well over $20 million
With Across the Sea Of Time, Wings Of Courage, Thrill Ride, Mark Twain and Cirque Du Soleil, Sony must have spend over $40 million, plus some more in distribution overhead and marketing. To date, Sony’s LF films have grossed less than $80 million worldwide. Bringing the studio probably less than $20 million in royalties. Even with the sponsorship deals, Sony must still be well over $20 million in the red. Would they be in it for the long run?
Ogden - Losses: who knows … (probably millions both as exhibitors and content producers), they’re on their way out.
Etc…..
In October 1998, Maximage reported 551 bookings of 73 films in 196 theaters. In October 1999, the LF Journal reported 764 bookings of 94 films in 232 theaters. That's a 39% increase in number bookings, a 29% increase in number of films and an 18% increase in theaters. In other words, a lot more films are being booked for shorter periods of time. Sure the number of screens is growing at a very healthy pace (maybe too fast in some markets), nonetheless theater network grows at a much slower rate than the supply of films.
Furthermore, a large portion of new LF screens are opening up in multiplexes. Most multiplexes average less than 150000 admissions per year. It takes more than five multiplex screens combined to reach the admission levels of some of the most successful institutional theaters.
At this stage, larger entities like Discovery should stay away from the large format business, unless they are in it for the long run and can afford a good number of years of red ink. The numbers just do not add up. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, November 14, 1999 - 01:30 pm
|
|
|
I bet those industry old timers who doubted the potential of such big players as Intel, Discovery, Ogden and Sony are saying "I told you so" right about now. I bet some of those same veterans are secretly cheering because the number of software providers in this business is shrinking again. It is amazing how in the large format industry so few people can affect so much in such a big way. How can the 60,000,000 ticket buying customers have an opinion if they don't even get to see the product?
Think about it. |
|
|
| Dean K. Fick posted on Saturday, November 20, 1999 - 01:34 pm
|
|
|
I received a form letter dated November 10th
indicating that Discovery is "restructuring its
efforts in the large format film industry." They
intend to keep making movies, but through partners
rather than with their own "in-house" producers
etc.
The end result will probably be more like the
National Geographic/Destination Cinema branding
agreement. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 - 04:53 pm
|
|
|
| It will be interesting to see what happens after the next project Discovery is involved in. You don't lay off more than 15 people and cease operations with budgets of a few million per year and simply dismiss it as a restructuring. What has happened to Discovery and lately to others is alarming. The reality is that with the exception of a few outstanding theaters, very few commercial operators are making it. Yet, these theaters buried in the middle of multiplexes are being heralded as the future. But, if these theaters are not successful, they will as we know, convert to bigger 35mm houses. What then will become of the producers and distributors barely hanging on year to year? Sure, the museum theaters are still solid, but the whole industry needs to thrive, not just the original 100 and their suppliers. The future is frightening indeed. But, this problem is nothing new. As long as we are dominated by one company we will continue on this precarious path. The reason the conventional film business is strong is because it is all about film. When was the last time anyone went into a theater to see a 35mm film because of the projector or a screen? Yes, we have heard these questions for years yet they continue to be relevant today. What's worse is that the hardware supplier alternatives have not proven to be formidable competitors so far. Although they have comparable technology, they are not clicking with customers enough to make a difference. Yes, this situation is an evolutionary one and some would argue that the strongest should survive. This is a fair point. However, at what cost? The future of our industry has got to be about film, film, film, or there may be no future. I'm not just talking about "event" films that only the likes of Disney or other studios can deliver, or, exceptions like EVEREST where current events, unprecedented marketing support and great film making all come together in perfect harmony, but educational and commercial films like TO FLY, GRAND CANYON, DREAM IS ALIVE, LIVING SEA, WINGS OF COURAGE, ROLLING STONES AT THE MAX, FIRES OF KUWAIT, TO THE LIMIT, EXTREME, THRILL RIDE, ENCOUNTER IN THE THIRD DIMENSION, T-REX, MYSTERIES OF EGYPT, ANTARCTICA, ACROSS THE SEA OF TIME, AFRICA THE SERENGETI, AMAZON, etc. Where would we without those and other titles? I remain an optimist, but its getting harder everyday. Does anyone have any theories on how we will do? I challenge everyone who reads this to think of ways we can all win. Real solutions only please. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 08:40 am
|
|
|
Well, to put it simply, you have to give the people what they want. And what they want is something that they consider worth their money. For some, that is entertainment, for others, education in a breathtaking form. But what you CANNOT do is give them something they can see on PBS without losing much of the impact (e.g. "Mountain Gorilla"). As in 35, sometimes you make a really good 1570 film and no one comes to see it due to extraneous reasons (the title, the timing of it's release, competition, the economy, etc.,.). And other times, you make a "dog" that ends up making a lot of money. But, overall, if you make good films and market them correctly then people will pay to come see them.
Now, having said that, it's pretty obvious that there are a lot more people willing to part with their money to be entertained than there are who are willing to part with their money to be educated. Disney World does not clear a million bucks a day because people want to be educated. The 35mm. "Titanic" did not become the highest-grossing movie due to it's educational content of describing how an iceberg is made and how the ship was punctured; people just wanted to see the special effects of that big sucker going down. "Star Wars"--same thing. So, while I think the educational films can hold their own, the only way we'll see very big profit margins is by creating big-ticket entertainment films. And I'm not talking "Encounter in the Third Dimension", here--I'm talking "Star Wars Episode 2: The Imax Menace". (Or that seemingly-now-dead Paramount "Star Trek" film.) And it's a good marriage; 70mm. is expensive to shoot, so it's better if you know what you want to shoot and don't leave too much on the cutting room floor, and special effects play into this perfectly. So, while "Everest" was nice, and "F2K" might make a little blip on the radar screen, until someone like Lucas or Spielberg makes a film, we won't see much going on. How about "Indiana Jones 4" in Imax? I bet you people would pay to see that. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 09:22 am
|
|
|
| While I would pay to see Indiana Jones in large format or large format 3D, I disagree with Mr. Didio that this is the "only" answer. Consider the economics. The current average "per theater" take (or the share of box office to the distributor and producer) for a large format film is between $65,000 - $100,000. The number of bookings for a successful large format film has to exceed 100. So, lets assume that an Indiana Jones or Star Wars in large format exceed those considerably. Lets assume that the average take for such a film is $150,000 per theater and lets assume such a film is licensed by 200 theaters. Any good distributor would have to be crazy to forecast the above for any film. Nevertheless, lets assume it is possible. The above scenario delivers $30 million in film rental. This is an exceptional number by the way. I think most producers would be excited with 1/3 of that. Then, reduce that by 25% for distribution fees and expenses. That leaves $22.5 million to the producer. Still an extremely successful take. If films like T-REX, SIEGFRIED & ROY and WINGS OF COURAGE all cost around $15 million, how much do you think Indiana Jones or Star Wars would cost in large format, let alone in 3D? And this doesn't even take marketing costs into consideration. Again, I would pay to see these spectacular films on the giant screen, but I feel it is going to be good entertaining and educational films like the ones mentioned in the posting before Mr. Didio's, that are going to see us through. Films which cost between than $5 million and $10 million, including E3D or MYSTERIES OF EGYPT or LIVING SEA or ALASKA or INTO THE DEEP or ANARCTICA for example, all of which have achieved various levels of critical and commercial success. While there will always be room for big event films like the ones Mr. Didio is suggesting, it is simply not realistic to suggest this is the "only" answer. Let's remember what got us here! |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 02:53 pm
|
|
|
Another thing that I think would have to happen is some sort of change in the way things are financially done. If all of Mr. Anonymous's numbers are correct, and thus no one can really make more than a paltry few million (compared to the hundreds of millions that 35mm. can pull in), then it doesn't really seem practical for ANYONE to make a large-format film, does it? (At least not without serious corporate funding.) Maybe someone needs to re-think the whole money end of this industry.
And, by the way, if you're going to post anonymously yet go out of your way to refer to me three times, spell my name right. It's TWO capital Ds--DiDio--which, in literal Italian, means "of God" (a definition that I'm sure anyone I've worked with will vociferously disagree with--in fact, I've often been accused of coming from "the other guy"). :) |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, November 24, 1999 - 03:15 pm
|
|
|
| Dear Mr. DiDio, I apologize for spelling your name incorrectly. I also agree with you that a vital part of the future large format films success will be the ability of producers to raise sponsorship or corporate underwriting. A free $1 million or more can make a greal deal of difference to a return model. Further, I still feel (in the short term at least) that $5 million + budgets will be able to make money as opposed to $15 million + budgets. For example, if a film secures 125 licenses at an average of $75,000 per license (a very good but realisticly achievable feat), that is a return of around $7 million after the deduction of distribution fees and expenses. For a $5.5 million investment a return of $7 million is not paltry is it? If you add $1 million in sponsorship, the return gets even better. |
|
|
|
|
All this talk about what the revenues per theater are seems to be crucial. Isn't it so that IMAX Ltd. produces films with a loss. The thing they make money on is the hardware business (initial and yearly rental fees). The fees that IMAX theaters pay to IMAX are substantial. I don't say that it too much or not enough, but it's a lot of money. Money that can't be allocated to film rental to producers.
IMAX likes to reach critical mass by getting more theaters up. That's great. The way they try to achieve this is by putting a lot of money in productions (which is great again). The bad thing is that they produce from the money they get from the theaters, money other than film rental . A non-IMAX producer has the problem that they have to recoup from film rental only.
If IMAX Ltd. want's to sell more systems they should maybe lower the costs for their systems. This would make it easier for a company to purchase a system and it would give it more room to pay higher film rental to distributors. As a result more films will be produced. Of course less by IMAX itself, but this will be more than offset by the increase in independent produced films. I believe that the result will be more theaters and more films from healthier companies. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, November 27, 1999 - 09:52 am
|
|
|
In order for a 2-D film to generate $75,000 in licensing fee it has to gross about $500,000 at the box-office, since the average licensing fee for a 2-D film is around 15%. In order for a 2-D film to get 125 licenses at an average $75,000 licensing fee, that film would have to gross $62,5 million (over 10 million paying filmgoers). This is a totally unrealistic goal in the current market place. At best one film per year might reach that level of sucess.
Today, any film grossing $40 million at the B.O. will be considered a hit, generating $6 million in licensing fees. Deduct the 25% distribution fee and $500,000 in marketing cost, this leaves $4 million for the producers... Hardly enough to cover the production cost and the interest on the investment, in most cases (and we are talking about a hit film).
Sure the theater network is growing. But these venues are not performing. The pie is not getting much bigger, but the slices are definitely getting much smaller.
This industry is currently not viable.
The release of Fantasia will provide an invaluable data on the health of the giant screen (commercial) theaters. The weekly box-office grosses (assuming that Disney reports the grosses) will give a clear indication on how these theaters are doing. Since Fantasia will get 100% of the shows, we will simply have to divide the average gross per theater by the average ticket price and we will know the average attendance of these theaters. I don't think it is going to be a pretty picture.
Currently these commercial theaters probably don't average 150,000 admissions per year (not enough to cover overhead), or about 3000 admissions per week. At an average ticket price of $10, this would represent a $30,000 weekly gross. How much better will they do with a film like Fantasia and Disney's marketing power?
Time will tell, but if it does not get much better with Fantasia, we will see multiplex operators pulls out of the giant screen exhibition before the end of 2000.
And a lot of producers will get out of the business in a hurry!
Contrary to the previous posting, Imax Corporation is not spending its outrageous royalty fees to finance new films. They have in the past, but this resulted in a $20 million write-off earlier this year. Currently Imax has hardly anything in production: Cyberworld - some sort of compilation film and Space Station - a film financed by Lockheed Martin. Imax is getting smart, they have finally understood that there is no money to be made in large format film production. As long as new producers (blinded by the success of Everest) are willing waste their precious money in this business, why bother!
The sad thing is that a lot of the films produced by these newcomers are far more interesting than most titles released by the oldtimers...
Lets see what will happen to companies like L-Square and their "$50 million" line of credit after the disastrous opening of the brilliantly produced and directed "Siegfried & Roy"... |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has become amazing! I wouldn't be surprised if most of the above anonymous cowards are the same bitter person. I'm no expert in the financial aspects of film-making, but I do have a few shreds of common sense; if the very people who are most involved in something decry it, you'll get a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re:
> When was the last time anyone went into a theater
> to see a 35mm film because of the projector or
> a screen?
I don't know why ordinary people go see films in 35mm, but the reason I go entirely depends on the screen and the projector--I happen to think that (despite some shortcomings) 35mm is entirely superior to a pan-and-scan VHS replay of a film. So, the correct answer: less than six days ago.
Perhaps IMAX should do some research as to why people visit 35mm theatres. Who knows--perhaps the difference between current attendance, and full houses every show entirely depends upon the sale of $10 Mega-Jumbo popcorn buckets smothered in artificial butter.
If any of the above sarcastic bits have offended you then they have done their job. Beating up anonymously on the 1570 industry with loony rantings and no solid evidence (nevermind credentials) behind you is nothing less than cowardice--you bad anons ought to be ashamed of yourselves. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 09:42 am
|
|
|
I agree, John. I also take the quality of the operation into consideration when I go see a 35mm. film. But I doubt that most people in the general public do, which is what the cheap 35mm. theater operators count on. One of the guys I work with hasn't been to a conventional theater for years because he can't stand the poor quality. But the GP doesn't know any better, I think.
In Boston, I was very impressed with the revamping of General Cinemas, and Sony also does a nice job; Showcase (a/k/a Redstone) are pretty bad, though. In Tampa, I was very impressed with the multiplex near Brandon Town Center (can't remember who ran it), and AMC is good as well. In Syracuse, the theaters are all Hoyt's, which is an utterly horrible operation, but they own EVERYTHING so I have no choice.
Another thing to keep in mind: in a conventional theater, if the public doesn't like the theater, they blame the theater. But if they don't like the film, they blame the film. In 1570, if they don't like ANYTHING--the theater, the film, the ushers, the price of admission--all of the blame goes to the Imax Theater. I'm not sure what it means, but it's a good point to remember. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting point about the customer perceptions, Jim. I too have noticed that unhappy customers tend to blame the theatre for everything from the sickening motion of the camera to the dope that kept kicking their seat-back during the film.
I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that a large part of the problem is that many customers enter the theatre with no knowledge of what the film or theatre will be like. Compared to 35mm films, 1570 flicks are sparsely reviewed, advertised, and discussed. 35mm films, on the other hand, are run with the support of TV trailers, advertisements, large word of mouth, etc.; with half of those movies, you already know the premise, the plot, and the conclusion possibly even before the production company has finished editing the film. In the 1570 world, many customers buy the ticket based solely on the title, or because they just happen to be there.
Another factor may be that first-run 35mm theatres, from the customers vantage point, seem to have a pre-ordained schedule -- from theatre
to theatre there are only small differences in which films are showing on any given day. 1570 theatres, in contrast, show whatever they want, whenever they want -- nevermind the relative costs, availability, etc that prevent us from showing exactly what we want to. If someone with a mean case of vertigo is visiting your institution from out of state, they might just go see To Fly! simply because they have no clue what the deal with 1570 is, they have to make that split-second box-office decision, and they decide that your institution is showing To Fly! becuse it endorses the film and all it's content.
Perhaps to help the production companies and ourselves to get more people viewing 1570 films we need make everything seem a little more parallel to 35mm (that they know what the theatre is like, and what the film is about before buying hte ticket). How many theatres out there have a large, visible display in front of the box office that explains the 1570 experience, and explains what the customer will get out of the films that you are showing? How many of you have the running time of your films on those displays? Do you have a display with films and showtimes in front of your building? If an theatre relies solely upon the large size of it's screen to draw customers, then only customers drawn by large screens will show up. I could rant on this for thousands of words, but instead of putting up with that, just imagine if suddenly the bulk of your customers came to your theatre because they read or heard about how incredibly great a film called Africa's Elephant Kingdom was, and subsequently discovered that your theatre was showing it. |
|
|
|
|
What we need to sell tons and tons of tickets is LOTS and LOTS of hype...can you imagine owning the whole set of 'Everest' action figures? (ED! Now WITHOUT oxygen tank! or, Suzuki with RIB-CRACKIN' action! Jamling Norgay with SUPER-HUMAN strength!) Or, more realistically, an erupting volcano science kit to market with 'Ring of Fire', etc. All jests aside, this kind of thing actually does encourage people to go see the movie and advertising types will tell you that pretty much ANYTHING with your product's name attached to it will bring people's attention to it. This is not ALWAYS good (Godzilla '98), but usually it brings in people that may never have heard of it before.
I have the bad feeling that in order for the LF format to survive, much less grow, there will have to be (and I hate to use the word) more "synergy" and cross-promotional type things. Hey, I might not go into McD's for an "Africa: the Serengeti" Happy Meal (OK, bad example), but lots of people will, and that type of market needs to be exploited if LF is to grow. It's fine to advertise the system, but be sure to advertise the film as well. I've heard lots of gripes from people who enjoy the large format but wish there were more films, fewer documentaries among those, and a higher rate of turnover. Obviously, the old way of doing things in this industry will not work because the industry has changed so much. (I think that's been said, like, a jillion times on this page. But then, there's a reason for that) |
|
|
|
|
Ian, your quite correct in the fact that LF should try to market or merchandise the film a bit better, take Fantasia 2000 for example. You can get CD's, t-shirts, figures from the film, besides Mickey, books, sovienur programs...the list goes on. The theatre I work at is selling these things.
It seems the LF market tries to push some soundtracks, but not very activly. I know 'Extreme' got played on some alternative stations in Toronto. Funny about 'Africa happy meal', we're also showing that film now too. Collect all the animals in the film, have a whole herd of wilderbeasts! Or McD's could have promotional 'wilderbeasts' burgers! I know...bad taste. :) |
|
|
|
|
Ian, your quite correct in the fact that LF should try to market or merchandise the film a bit better, take Fantasia 2000 for example. You can get CD's, t-shirts, figures from the film, besides Mickey, books, sovienur programs...the list goes on. The theatre I work at is selling these things.
It seems the LF market tries to push some soundtracks, but not very activly. I know 'Extreme' got played on some alternative stations in Toronto. Funny about 'Africa happy meal', we're also showing that film now too. Collect all the animals in the film, have a whole herd of wilderbeasts! Or McD's could have promotional 'wilderbeasts' burgers! I know, I know..hhmmm. :) |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, December 13, 1999 - 11:55 pm
|
|
|
| oops...message got posted twice. |
|
|
|
|
| I just picked up the Fantasia 2000 Soundtrack...The name "IMAX" appears NOWHERE in the card or liner...not even in the 2 pages of background information. Hmmmm. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 10:30 am
|
|
|
Not to move the "Fantasia" talk to a new thread, but...
I wouldn't expect "IMAX" to appear on the CD soundtrack because, don't forget, it's going to conventional 35 in May.
And, besides, although for us inside the 1570 industry it's a crucial experiment, it really doesn't seem like Disney is looking at the Imax thing as anything more than a marketing stunt. How else would you explain the rather irrational demand for 100% of the show schedule? Or, as a result, the weird distribution of where the film's showing? For example, here in Central New York, it'll be playing at both Rochester and Buffalo, which means two small cities within an hour's drive of each other will have the film... yet, since Boston and Norwalk aren't showing it, the film is not showing anywhere in New England (which means that roughly, what, 20 million people don't have access to this product?). |
|
|
|
|
...but not even once...I mean, c'mon!
That would have been an appropriate place to note such an historic collaboration. |
|
|
|
|
In response to Jim DiDio, I think Boston and New
England are quite lucky in not showing 'the film'.
In London, both the BFI and the Pepsi Imax will be
showing it which means if you want to see an Imax
film in London in the next four months other than
fantasia, you're out of luck.
I've seen the film and I'm still in shock. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, December 17, 1999 - 09:32 am
|
|
|
Hmmm.... I'm not sure, but I detect a negative review here.... I hope you don't plan on applying for a job with Disney any time soon...
:) |
|
|
|
|
| Catherine has merely stated her opinion...without hiding behind a mask. I think Disney needs to know if people do or don't like F2K, they SHOULD be appreciative of all opinions, shared by industry professionals...regardless of the possibility that Roy and Co. get their feelings hurt. Whether I like it or not, you can bet that I'll let 'em know what I think as well. In the case that I dislike any part of it, my delivery probably won't be as poigniant. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Friday, December 17, 1999 - 03:18 pm
|
|
|
An interesting question: what happens if the film's a dog?
In the view of Hollywood, it might not necessarily "kill" 1570's chances of going mainstream. Say, for example, the film's a dog, but it does whizz-bang attendance, especially at the start. Hollywood might say, "Well, the film's a dog but, hey, look at the turnout it got! Maybe they're on to something with this 1570 stuff."
As far as the public goes, it could hurt the overall 1570 attendance if first-time customers attend F2K as their first Imax film and take that experience as the norm, saying, "Well, I'll never go see one of THOSE again." Yet, it may also have the reverse effect--people saying, "Gee, I really didn't like the film, but I was impressed with the technology and the staff; I'll have to come back here and see that nature documentary opening in June."
It's going to be an interesting first quarter of 2000. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, December 18, 1999 - 01:15 pm
|
|
|
BUTCH
When I say Bolivia, you think California.
SUNDANCE
You just keep thinking, Butch. That's what you're good at. |
|
|
|
|
It seems that the subject F2K keeps wandering around. It's now at: Discovery leaves LF world
We'll be showing F2K and we'll be showing some trailers of upcoming films before the feature. This should, hopefully, get people interested in the medium and our new films
I don't think that F2K is a bad film, actually I think it quit nice. The problem is that it's not framed as an 15/70 film, which could get us in trouble with selling the first two rows. I'll be checking that out today actually, I couldn't get myself sitting on the first row during the first screening. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, December 20, 1999 - 09:59 am
|
|
|
| Hmm...why would ANYONE want a job with Disney? Arrogant, self-centered and bullying are three adjectives that come to mind....yes, I've had problems in the past with them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
