| Message/Author |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 06:37 pm
|
|
|
The IMAX-Disney deal is about to change the large format film industry for all time - and institutional theaters will never recover.
The following item, found on the YAHOO! Finance board, says it all:
Disney-IMAX deal: flipping the bird at IMAX' heritage
Without the institutional theatres, IMAX would have faded into the sunset more than 20 years ago. Now, however, IMAX has chosen to kiss off all of those theatres when striking its Fantasia 2000 deal with Disney.
These were the very theatres that first took the big gamble -- building a theatre when the technology was young, and there were few films available.
IMAX has chosen to accept a variety of terms and requirements from Disney, eventhough IMAX knew that those terms would not just be unacceptable to the institutional theatres, but in most cases would be impossible for them.
It is unfortunate that IMAX has decided to turn its back on the very organizations that built IMAX. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 07:58 pm
|
|
|
I'm not an employee of Imax. I think some of their business practices are deplorable, a few maybe even illegal. But I don't see how the Fantasia deal hurts institutional theatres. Imax is simply responding to market demand, and the legitimate shareholder quest for better earnings and share price appreciation.
We are way, way beyond the point, as an industry, where anyone could realistically claim Imax Corp has a moral responsibility to supply the network with film. There is SO much film being produced independent of Imax Corp's direct involvement.
We are at the point with the proliferation of film that the market will likely splinter into 'commerciial' vs. 'institutional' films. Disney is one example, but hardly the first attempt to feed the comerical pipeline. Rolling Stones at the Max and Titanica 90 were earlier attempts to kick-start the commercial segment.
The indignation by institutional theatres is excusable to a point. Imax could be a lot more customer-friendly and diplomatic. Imax has quite bluntly, especially since the ownership change in 1994, stated their preference to develop the commercial side of the business. That kind of straight talk isn't all that bad, (at least we know where we stand!) if only they could stick to it. But Imax has to muddy the waters with their sappy, disingenuous 'year of the customer' pronouncements, and their pretentious, buy-off-the-customer 'IMAX DAys'.
Finally, the 'risk taking' by the institutional theatres in the 70's and 80's has to be put in perspective. Most were heavily subsidized by the public sector, interest free money and gifts of land. The repurcussions of failure were limited. Nonetheless, the institutional theatres should be credited for their incredibly important contributions to shaping the operation, marketing, programming and technical development of this industry. A few thank you's along the way would have gone a long way to building bridges, not divisions, today. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 10:01 pm
|
|
|
| Very nicely stated. I couldn't agree with you more! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, March 26, 1999 - 11:15 am
|
|
|
| Get over it people. We all know Imax is only concerned about one thing, the price of their stock. Everything they do is motivated by that. They have poor, no, inexcusable customer service, their recent films are batting 1 for 4, they mislead and misrepresent theater performance potential to perspective customers and they allow for unecessary and unhealthy competition between new theaters. Nevertheless, it is their business. We should all shut up and try to do our business better. If someone wants to teach them a lesson, they should buy an Iwerks or Megasystems projector. Until then and for as long as 9 out of every 10 customers buys or leases and Imax projector, we get what we deserve. Complaining only goes so far. Action in the end will speak volumes. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, March 26, 1999 - 01:00 pm
|
|
|
As to how the poster two posts above says they "don't see how the Fantasia deal hurts institutional theaters", my response is how could you NOT see how it hurts institutional theaters. By demanding a 100% show schedule, with only 8 months of notice, they have literally made it LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for theaters with signed contracts for other films to run F2K. This, along with the pricing plan, slants it towards commercial 15/70s. (The contract is much more like that of a 4/35 film.) And this will set the precedent for Hollywood studios, which means all of the non-educational films (read: the ones that will actually make money) will be slanted towards commercial 3Ds. I, for one, would LOVE to run F2K, but we have a signed contract for "Dolphins". So we're sh*t out of luck, as the saying goes.
And as to the last post, I'd disagree that Imax has poor customer service, at least in the technical end. Sure, they may be stretched a little thin, because they're not keeping their staff at a personnel level to match the number of theaters. But they're always ready to chase down the answer to a problem, even if they don't have the answer on hand. And the spare parts come along without TOO much of a hassle. But I do agree that they've oversaturated the market and have created unhealthy competition by letting too many theaters get built near each other. I mean, c'mon... I've never been there, but does Seattle really need THREE Imax theaters? Does upstate New York (which is a low population base) need three theaters, each one hour from another (Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse), which doesn't even count the Niagara Falls theater or the Toronto ones? Does Tampa need a 3D when they already have a Dome? Does the Hudson River stretch need any more theaters (New Jersey Sci. Ctr., two in NYC, one in W. Nyack, and another planned for Albany)? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, April 02, 1999 - 02:08 pm
|
|
|
| I also agree there are too many theaters being built to close together. case in point we operate a dome theater and now we know for a fact a 3D theater will be built, get this, only about 5 miles away. granted it will be accross a river and in another state, but what about all the other factors such as (staff) competiton and our city is not even that big. Are they still doing the market research to see if a city can support such an endever?? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, April 04, 1999 - 03:23 pm
|
|
|
| Re the last posting: if you're referring to the vendors of large format hardware "doing research", they don't! In the case of Imax, the prospect of the large upfront lease fee, and 10 years of minimum royalty and maintenance paymnets is far too seductive to worry about research. As for the smaller large format system vendors, they're so weak, financially, they just need the sale to stay alive. The marketplace really relies on the buyer to do his research, and hopefully act rationally. The existing theatres have to fend for themselves, but because they usually have good advance notice, they can, and do, shore up their base and devise good defensive measures to protect their franchise. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, April 05, 1999 - 01:14 pm
|
|
|
| Yeah, but when it comes to "shoring up their base", there's really not that much many places can do; attendance often has more to do with the available bodies than it does with any marketing strategies. If you have three main branches of attendance--say, tourism, locals, and school groups--and of those groups, the first two options (tourism and locals) are very limited due to size restraints (e.g. your city doesn't really have tourists, and there aren't that many locals), then when another theater appears only an hour or two away (or, even worse, in the same city) you're kind of stuck. (Especially if you're an institutional theater, and you're already having a hard time luring patrons to the door--and then a 3DSR pops up in the local megamall which already gets thousands of shoppers on the weekend.) |
|
|
|
|
| WHOA EVERYBODY!!! Not to totally disagree,... (I agree that some oversaturation may have occurred in a few markets.)...but LF customers are no longer going out to see "That new IMAX movie" anymore. They are deciding more and more to see these films based on content, subject matter, and quality. (The newspaper in Phoenix lists all LF films in the cinema guide along with ALL of the rest.) Up until now, entire cities went to their respective LF theaters to see films painstakingly selected for them by those theaters' marketing departments. Factor in the average length of a LF film-run and the customers really may not care if they are buying tickets to see yet another shuttle-launch, as long as it is on the big screen. For the first time, our customers are getting to make choices about what they get to see. My theater shares the same market with two commercial Imax theaters (one is 3D). It is not in my institutions' best interest to share the market, but it would be wrong to monopolize it. The public deserves a choice. There are twenty-some-odd films to be released this year. Liberally speaking, say 1/3 of those films are dogs. That still leaves no lack of programming. Audiences speak with their wallets...film producers work for dollars, it's not a complicated formula. There will always be a market for commercial as well as educational films. Everybody relax for now -- but not too much. No one knows for sure what will happen. |
|
|
|
|
Ah, Eric.....so true, so true.
Two important facts have been overlooked during the duration of this argument.
1) Disney has been courting IMAX for well over a year, begining with the video release of Titanica to coincide with the video release of Paramount/Fox's Titanic. The video was released by Disney subsidiary Marimax, as was the Everest video (although a M/F film). As early as November, rumors were circulating that Disney would attempt to make an IMAX version of Lion King, Fantasia, or Toy Story. I'm not too sure what happened with Toy Story, but Chris Reyna told me, and this was confirmed by the folks at the Cal Science Center (where it was screened) that Dreamworks had attempted a 15/70 3D transfer of Antz.
2) Imax appears to be concentrating towards large format animation (much like the LFCA). This was mentioned in their recent press release where they announced they had invested $16 million Canadian into Mainframe (creators of the Reboot Imax Ridefilm) to produce 3 CGI animated large format films. As of this point, it appears that Sony is the only major film studio investing in live action live format. No one seems to know where the Star Trek film is and it will be a while before a large format feature is made. (see the March James Cameron interview in Premiere.) |
|
|
|
|
While hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent building new (mostly 3D) theaters, hardly any effort or money goes in the development of 3D production technology. The 3D production tools remain archaïc at best, forcing filmmakers to make compromises at all stages of the creative process.How long will producers be able to afford losing millions for every 3D film they make, even if said producers also sell projectors or operate theaters (Into The Deep is the only 3D film film in the black). Computer animation is currently the only cost efficient alternative. I am absolutely convinced that the future of 3D cinema will be digital or it will not be at all (CGI and digital live action cameras).
Having said that, I see the release of Fantasia in large format as a one of a kind event. On paper it is very easy to figure out the cost of converting a 35mm CGI feature film to 1570. You simply look at the rendering logs of the feature film and calculate the time it will take to re-render the film in high resolution (there is a mathematical formula to figure that out). You multiply the hours of rendering time by +/- $25 (the average hourly rate for computer rendering), you add the cost of film recording (+/- $5 per frame), the lab cost and the cost of the post-production sound (re-mix to large format specifications). My guess is that a films like Toy Story or Antz would cost between $6 and $9 million to be converted into 3D 1570 films. On paper, that is. In reality a good portion of these films would be absolutely unwatchable in 1570 3D without major creative changes (framing, pacing, editing, slower movements...).
In fact, I do not think it would be financial viable to go back and turn Antz to a 3D 1570 large format film. On top of the $6 and $9 million technical cost, you would probably have to add $20 to $30 million in production expenses and R&D development work (a lot of effects and textures will have to be re-done from scratch for the high resolution version).
However, if the large format version is planned in advance and is produced concurrently with feature film version, it will be possible to produced a 1570 3D feature film within a $12 to $18 million budget range.
As a filmmmaker, I am really looking forward to the release of Fantasia in 1570. I feel I will be able to learn a lot from watching the film in terms of what works and does not work in the converstion process, both technically and creatively.
As the C.E.O. of a company dedicated to the production and distribution of large format films, it is somewhat unsettling to see that a company like Disney could be able to monopolize all the prime programming slots worldwide at a time when more films than ever are reaching the market place.
Times they are a-changing and we are very exited to be part of this new wave! |
|
|
|
|
| Yep. We have a bigger canvas to fill. Too many folks look at it as just an opportunity to blow up every last image. However, I have said and I maintain that although rare, there are special conditions that allow for those kinds of shots too. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, April 08, 1999 - 10:30 am
|
|
|
If you go back up and read the first post, you'll note that this topic has strayed from it's original purpose. To return to it, as I agree with it: why is there no outcry from the institutional theaters concerning this deal? I'm not really interested in whether or not 3D is going to go totally animation; I'm interested in the fact that this deal is screwing institutional theaters and may be setting the precedent which all Hollywood companies may follow. Whether or not F2K is a success or a bust is not the point; the point is, will the Hollywood films that follow it also be coming out with only months' advance booking notice and requiring things like 50% revenue, 100% show schedule, etc.,.?
What seems clear to me is that Imax is heading towards what it's always wanted--a foothold in the commercial market--and now that they have more commercial theaters than institutional ones, they're willing to sell OUR (read: institutionals') souls to the Devil (or the Mouse, as it may be) in order to make sure that their commercial (i.e. flat 3D) theaters become a success. Am I the only one who has heard that the Imax policy for Dome conversion is basically, "rip out your Dome and put in a flat screen", which would encompass millions of dollars in retrofitting? Is that the answer to the problem of all Hollywood 1570s being slated towards flat screens and/or 3D? Does someone actually mean to tell me that Disney is the only bad guy here--that when Disney said to Imax, "Oh, by the way, we demand 100% schedule even though it's only 10 months away", that Imax said, "Oh, no! You can't do that! That will cripple the ability of most institutional theaters to sign a contract"? No, they probably said, "Oh, well, whatever." Like Imax was not aware that the Museum Film Network already had "Dolphins" lined up for March 2000? And even if Disney and MacGillivray-Freeman start to agree to small concessions, it's going to take too much time to get through the impasse. As each critical week slips by--each week that an institutional theater could be using to plan marketing, staffing, and ticketing strategies--do the institutional theaters now get to watch Disney and MFF play "tug of war" over April School Vacation Week like two dogs on a bone? I know what'll happen: if anyone even cares enough to try and negotiate a deal palatable to the institutions with signed contracts--and that's a big "if"--the deal won't get worked out until October, by which point it'll be moot 'cause NO institutional theaters will be able to make the programming change to F2K with the short amount of time left. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, April 08, 1999 - 10:51 am
|
|
|
| To the last posting. This is why the best compromise situation for everyone will be for Disney to ease off on the show requirement by asking for only 2-3 shows per day (Disney are you listening?). This way everybody wins. The theaters, institutional and commercial win because they add something special to their schedules be they dominated by DOLPHINS or something else (in the case of museums) or be they dominated by 3D films (if they are commercial). The industry wins because it will be rejuvinated and invigorated by the marketing clout of Disney, which is something we all can benefit from. Disney wins because they still get their 15/70 platform for F2K and at 2-3 shows per day, probably with more sold out houses. Lets face it, if F2K were to be shown all day (say from 10:00am to 9:00pm), theaters will not be sold out all day, no way, no how. But, if a theater (institutional or commercial) ran 2-3 shows per day, the chances of sold out F2K shows would be much higher. Under this scenario everyone stands to benefit. Under this scenario Disney has every right to charge 50% License Fees because of all the marketing they will put behind the release of F2K. Under this scenario, the mouse can be an 80 foot tall mouse, not a devil in disguise. Theaters should negotiate with Buena Vista now! They should say, we can offer 2-3 shows per day and this is a good thing. If it worked for Mick why can't it work for Mickey? |
|
|
|
|
| An important note to consider is that the cineplexes which are adding large format theaters are partially owned by studios (Sony, Universal, Paramount, etc.). Thus, it makes more sense for studios and IMAX, which is now a publicly held company, to endorse commercial films to be played in these theaters where they have a monetary interest. More than likely, within the next ten to fifteen years, we will see a seperation of the industry into schools. Independent producers, such as M/F and Graphic Films will more than likely still produce a majority of their product for the institutional market, while the big studios produce commercial product for the cineplex market. And don't think that the indies will just stick to institutional films. When I interviewed Michael Stearn about his sound design work for the Back to the Future ride, he told me that the original contractor for the film was none other than MacGillvary/Freeman. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, April 09, 1999 - 06:52 pm
|
|
|
Let me second the suggestion made by the poster on April 8th. The best solution would be for the Mouse to compromise, allowing institutional theatres to participate with 2-3 screenings a day. Thus, they would be able to serve their individual educational missions....would not have to break existing contracts with other film distributors ....and the entire industry would benefit.
However, without Imax's intervention, no such compromise will occur.
Unfortunately, it is safe to assume that Imax will take no such action. Although Imax had the opportunity to bring the entire community of Imax theatres together, to the mutual benefit of all, it appears that Imax will only concern itself with actions that immediately benefit Imax. Since Imax has decided to specifically tie its future to the commercial theatres, it is a case of institutional theatres, GET LOST! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 - 08:08 pm
|
|
|
| The first three (of four) Imax/Omnimax systems were installed into non-institutional facilities (world expos, amusement parks). Carry it up to the 11th system and you'll still find the majority of installations were in for-profit, entertainment (non-educational) venues. Perhaps Imax hasn't forgotten its roots at all... they are just going back to them! |
|
|
|
|
| Large format theaters at world expos and the films that show in them have much more in common with the institutional side of the industry than the commercial. |
|
|
| Ken Larson posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2000 - 11:01 pm
|
|
|
Hello,
Have we all forgotten that IMAX needs to make a profit in order to keep their doors open. Do we want the entire industry to die off because we want to be pure institutional or not get any ones panties in a wad.
Look at what happened to Discovery films for LF.
Its basic economics. IMAX has to do some bending and give concessions at times so they can afford to take chances on a rather risky venture such as documentaries.
Lets also remember that they are experimenting to see what WILL work. They have no magic ball. The entertainment business is tough,fickle,and unpredictable.
Now that they are public they also have a lot more people to answer to.
Finally, if you are going to attack the honesty and forthright nature of a company you should at least show the integrity and guts,you so loudly claim they don't have, by signing your name and not hide behind the word anonymous.
proudly signed,
Ken Larson |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, March 30, 2000 - 12:29 pm
|
|
|
| Apparently, Giant Screen Sports thinks that they should have %40 of ticket sales...Gee, where'd they get THAT idea from?? At least Disney paid for the prints!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
