my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » AMC to use pre-show projectors and satellite to distribute movie (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: AMC to use pre-show projectors and satellite to distribute movie Mitchell Cope Master Film Handler Posts: 256 From: Overland Park, KS, United States Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-05-2004 06:50 PM                     This was in today's Kansas City Star. Personally, I'd want my money back if this was the best quality presentation available. Film, no, digital projection done wrong. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/9566532.htm Megaplex to the rescue AMC adopts indie coming-of-age film, the first time a theater chain has stepped in to make sure a movie gets to audiences By ROBERT W. BUTLER The Kansas City Star Michelangelo had the de Medicis. Shakespeare had the Earl of Southampton. First-time feature film director Enid Zentelis has AMC Entertainment Inc. On Friday AMC will debut Zentelis' coming-of-age film "Evergreen" on 114 of its screens in 27 cities, including all but one of its megaplexes here. It may be the first time any major theater chain has "adopted" a film, bypassing conventional distribution to bring a picture directly to customers. To cut the costs associated with marketing and distributing the modestly budgeted movie, AMC has taken advantage of the latest digital technology. Instead of striking exhibition prints of "Evergreen" (which could cost up to $2,500 each), the company is distributing the film by satellite, beaming it into theaters. It will be shown using the same digital projectors that display the chain's pre-shows of movie trivia and advertisements. That's another first. For writer/director Zentelis, who feared that her low-budget movie might go unseen or be lost in the art-house ghetto, it's a happy ending to a project that has consumed several of her 33 years. *** "Evergreen" is the story of Henri (newcomer Addie Land), a young teen dragged by her single mother (Cara Seymour) between minimum-wage jobs and bad relationships with men. Now they've spent their last dollars on a bus ticket to Everett, Wash., where they'll sleep on the floor of the tumbledown house occupied by Henri's grandmother (Lynn Cohen). Henri hates her poverty and is ashamed of her family. When classmate Chat Turley (Noah Fleiss) invites her to his home, she's welcomed by his parents (Mary Kay Place and Bruce Davison) and floored by the Turleys' wealth and sophistication. She wants desperately to become part of their seemingly ideal world. Only later does Henri realize that the Turleys have problems that not even money can solve. "Evergreen" isn't autobiographical, Zentelis said. "It's a work of fiction, but I write about what I know. I've worked every kind of (cruddy) job you can think of since elementary school. I grew up poor, but unlike Henri I didn't have self-esteem issues because my parents imbued me with a sense of self-worth." Zentelis studied film at NYU, where she won several awards for her shorts "Dog Race" and "The Man With My Nose" and made the documentary "Granny Was an Outlaw," about her grandmother's experiences during World War II. She was a director-for-hire, making behind-the-scenes documentaries. "I also did housekeeping, office work, whatever it took to keep my head above water." In 1999 she began writing "Evergreen" and the next year refined it at the Sundance Writers Lab. Getting the film made, though, was another story. "We put together some financing in New York, but it all fell apart. Instead of giving up I went to Seattle determined to put the production together any way I could." The Sundance Institute gave her a camera and film stock. She assembled a crew, most of whom agreed to work for deferred salaries. And she sent her script to Place and Davison. The Emmy-winning Place, who is usually cast in comic roles, said she jumped at the chance to tackle a serious role. "Besides, I like independent films, and this movie is really about something," she said. "Almost everything in the media perpetuates the notion that things will bring you happiness. It's precisely the opposite of the value system embraced by this movie." "Evergreen" was shot in 18 days in spring 2003. "It's kind of fun to work that fast," Place said. "But there was always enough time for what we needed. It never felt like we had to accept something that wasn't quite right." *** At January's Sundance Film Festival "Evergreen" played to enthusiastic audiences but wasn't picked up for theatrical distribution. In recent years the cost of marketing and distributing a typical Hollywood feature has risen to nearly $30 million. Without major stars, action, special effects or adolescent humor, the low-profile "Evergreen" couldn't justify that sort of investment. Quality wasn't the issue. Marketability was. A month later Zentelis was brainstorming with her producers and colleagues about how they might get "Evergreen" into theaters when she remembered meeting a man named Dick Walsh at the final Sundance screening of her film. Walsh, chairman of the AMC Film Group, recalls being blown away by "Evergreen." "My economic background wasn't the greatest," he said. "I wasn't born on third base, and watching this movie I was reminded of my own teen years. The experiences this girl in the movie goes through were exactly the sort of thing I remembered. "It was a very accurate portrayal of the things a family goes through when they're struggling economically." Zentelis recalls Walsh introducing himself after the screening and telling her he had two teenage daughters who needed to see "Evergreen." "It was a really satisfying thing to hear a middle-aged white guy reacting so emotionally to my film," she said. Walsh was one of several persons who left Zentelis their business cards. He told me: "This film deserves to be screened in a top-quality venue.' " It was a few weeks before she actually took a hard look at the card and realized that Dick Walsh ran one of America's biggest exhibition chains. "It took a while for us to wrap our minds around what this could mean," she said. It meant Zentelis had a big fan who ran his own theaters. *** "Evergreen" is ready for its close-up, according to AMC spokesman Rick King. "It was beamed down from the satellite a week ago," he said. "Now it's stored in each theater's server." It's the first time a commercial feature has been distributed to theaters by satellite. So far the movie industry hasn't come to a consensus on an official standard for digital projection. Large-scale digital distribution of features won't happen until exhibitors and distributors agree on the hardware and software and who pays for the conversion of theaters from film to digital. Meanwhile, AMC has installed Sanyo projectors in 2,500 of its auditoriums. The image thrown by these units isn't as clear as 35mm film or the high-end digital projectors, King acknowledged, but was good enough that director Zentelis approved. Theaters usually just sell tickets and show movies. Marketing challenges like setting up press screenings, getting coverage in newspapers and on radio and TV stations, cutting trailers and producing press kits for reviewers fall to studios and distributors. In the case of "Evergreen," though, those jobs landed in the laps of AMC staffers like marketing chief Frank Stryjewski, head of strategic development Frank Rash and marketing coordinator Mara Weaver. For these and other individuals at AMC, "Evergreen" has provided a crash course in promoting and selling a film. Two weeks ago Hollywood's big boys, Disney, Universal and other studios held simultaneous press junkets in Los Angeles for their coming films. AMC decided to piggyback its "Evergreen" press efforts with those of the big boys. It sent screener DVDs to critics in cities where "Evergreen" will open and invited them to visit the AMC suite to interview Zentelis, Davison, Place and Land. "Not only did we get three dozen reporters to show up, but I was impressed because so many of them had watched the DVD before coming," King said. "We had no idea what to expect. This hasn't been done before, but we felt really good about the response." "Evergreen" may not sell enough tickets to cover AMC's expenses, but there are other benefits. "It's a win for a filmmaker who otherwise might never have seen her film play outside of New York and Los Angeles," King said.It's a win for moviegoers who get to see something they otherwise wouldn't have. "And it's a win for AMC because it allows us to broaden our programming options and address the growing appetite for specialty films. "We're not looking at "Evergreen" as a make-or-break experience. We would absolutely like to do this again with another movie. We intend to do it again."  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 09-05-2004 06:57 PM                     quote: Mitchell Cope art-house ghetto What an interesting word choice. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. Oh, well. I bet her video will look great on those AMC screens. I wonder how this stands legally? The exhibitor is the distributor all over again. Did AMC offer to distribute this film to any other exhibitors? Probably not.  |  IP: Logged David Buckley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 525 From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand Registered: Aug 2004 posted 09-05-2004 07:21 PM                        The exhibitor is the distributor all over again? Distributors only exist - today - to solve the logistical issue of distributing heavy cans of filmic stuff to cinemas. Remove that need, and the need for distributors goes away. The better question is do AMC have a contractually exclusive right to show this movie? If so, then you could easily argue that this deal is anti-competitive. If not, then anyone who wants to can also approach Zentelis's production company, and ask for rights to exhibit said movie, and there is no anti-competitive element there. Just one chain who have worked out how to get a jump on the rest. But the real question is how will this experiment play with the punters. If it fails, due to done on the cheap, well, AMC lost a few bucks. If it works, then the script has just been rewitten. We live in interesting times.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-05-2004 10:11 PM                    It is not illegal for an exhibitor to distribute a film. Cineplex Odeon had a distribery (in Variety speak). So did Madstone. The fellow who runs the Railroad Square Cinemas in Waterville, Maine has a tiny operation called Shadow Distribution (I don't know if there is a formal corporate connection.) Others as well I'm sure. Obviously AMC was not a party to any of the consent decrees many decades ago. This beats Mark Cuban's plan to put video in many or all of the Landmark screens and distribute small movies that way.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-06-2004 03:06 AM                        i don't see that it's any better or worse. the thing was shot on film, according to the article, and should be shown that way. i assume it played as a film at sundance, so at least one print was struck. striking a few more wouldn't be that prohibitive. they could travel from one amc to another. of course, they would have to be treated well by the <amc term for projectionist>s, but that would be a much more worthwhile way to revolutionize the business than going video. heck, even if the prints were to get a bit abused and battered, they'd still look a damn sight better than video, particularly if they're struck from the camera negative. carl  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-06-2004 03:45 AM                     AMC did not produce the film and, hence, this is not an example of vertical integration. Furthermore, AMC is mostly showing movies by other distributors. The consent decree of the 1940s was intended to make theatres available to independent producers, which is exactly what AMC is seeking to do. I don't foresee any legal problems with this.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 09-06-2004 04:58 AM                     [ 09-08-2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-06-2004 10:32 AM                       Well, Chris, people keep paying for it without complaining. In many ways, projection in general is no where near as good as it was 30 years ago. Back when I started as a projectionist, being off the screen or having a film break wasn't an option. Guys used to get fired for stuff like that. Lo and behold, theatre circuits slowly get rid of the projectionist craft and presentations get crappy. Public sez nothing... So, it's whatever they will pay for without griping. That's all that matters anymore. Like the frog in a pot of water, with the heat slowly turned up... they don't notice until they're dead.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 09-06-2004 02:32 PM                     quote: Manny Knowles The consent decree of the 1940s was intended to make theatres available to independent producers Actually it was to give independent theatres access to major studio films. At the time, the major studios would supply their own theatres with their product (vertical integration) but far more troubling, would rent their movies to other major studio theatres at favorable terms, thus freezing out the small exhibitor.  |  IP: Logged David Buckley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 525 From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand Registered: Aug 2004 posted 09-06-2004 03:44 PM                        quote: Chris Hipp I can not justify the anal raping of a customer just because something is considered an "art" film. The customer is getting the anal rape thing not because its an art film (although if you are gonna screw about with your customers, its probably best to start with a smaller crowd), its because AMC can, because it makes finanical sense for AMC to do so. Furthermore, I dont believe the hype that this all happened due to a chance meeting of a director and a cinema chain manager. AMC were ready for this, the only chance item was which movie was first out of the blocks. Anyway, unless AMC customers complain like buggery (poor pun), then expect more of the same. The only thing that will stop this experiment in its tracks is the discovery by AMC that customers wont accept fifth rate cinema. If this works, the next thing will be a sequel that would have gone direct to video having a "limited theatrical release", just at AMC. So, this is where we all get to sit back and wait for the newspaper reports. Will they say " is cinema done bad - boycott your local AMC" or " revolutionises access to cinema - the future is here". We'll know in a few days, and when the history is written, this could be one of those definining moments of cinema...  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-06-2004 04:11 PM                        quote: Carl Martin i assume it played as a film at sundance, so at least one print was struck Not necessarily; I had heard somewhere that Sundance has a few digital projectors too. After all that talk about putting her sweat, blood and soul into making this FILM, you would think she would want people to see the best presentation, not settle for video -- and not even the best video available. Many, many small, independent films get made and are distributed on FILM, the only catch is that the distribution pattern can't be what it is for a major Hollywood release -- it can't open in 3000 theatres on the same day. Only a few prints are struck and they play many theatres over a longer period of time. This gives the small distributor time to market it in various markets, tailoring the campaigns more carefully, rather than using the broad, bulldozer, multimillion dollar approach of the big studios. This metered distribution pattern works well for many smaller projects; remember, films were distributed to key cities and subsequent markets in much the same fashion for decades and it worked very well. This instant opening in every theatre on the planet on the same day is a relatively recent shift in distribution patterns; it's the atom bomb approach whereas the small openings in key cities with very targeted marketing is the shotgun approach. There are a number of smaller distribution houses that will pick up a project that is worthy of their type of shotgun marketing. From the enthusiasm of the AMC exec, it seems like her film is a good one and surely could be marketed successfully by a smaller distributor. The mistake is that the stupid filmmaker should have said, "Well, if you think my FILM has merit, Mr. AMC executive, why not invest in a few dozen prints and circle them around the AMC circuit....that's why they call it a CIRCUIT." Not what methinks she actually did say (gushingly while fluttering her eyelashes).... "Oh, Mr. AMC executive, I am getting oh so wet just thinking of my film playing in all your AMC theatres at once that I simply don't care what it looks like....I just wanna see my name up in lights!...Sir." So what if it looks like crap; audiences have been dumbed-down already to accept the shitty look of high-speed, multi-generation prints, what's another step into mediocrity? To hell with her personal integrity and how this film comes from her soul and all that other NYU Film School crap. Hell, if this is what she wanted, for people to see video, why didn't she just go directly to DVD? Get a DVD distributor; they would spend a lot more on marketing than AMC did and launch a much bigger, professionally run campaign than the unskilled office workers who were enlisted to do the marketing at AMC. Bet AMC didn't get any Point Of Sale giant standees made for EVERGREEN like the video distributors would. She could have done the "art-house ghetto" (how obnoxious is that!) with a handful of prints and then with that under her belt, gotten it picked up by a DVD distributor. I also think it is fair to say that this will NOT become a trend, given the fact that chains generally vigorously resist playing films with no big distribution advertising bucks built in (advertising is the biggest cost in distribution -- the print costs are a drop in the bucket compared). Chains won't play independent, low budget films even when they have traditional distribution with 35mm prints. What makes anyone think that will change just because they can play them on inferior (which even the AMC exec acknowledges) video projectors? The economic model that makes it unprofitable for large chains to tie up screens with smaller, independent films with little or no advance marketing applies whether or not it's available on film or on video. This is a blip on the radar screen....some hot-shot 30-something AMC exec who thinks he's come upon a brilliant new idea. Just like the AMC guy who thought he had a come up with a "first"....."Wouldn't it be a great idea if we ran cartoons before a movie?!!" Like theatres never did that before. And he got all puffed up and got Warners to strike special boxed (1.33 in an 1.85 frame) versions of their old cartoons. How long did THAT last? Same with this video thing. All I know is, if I see EVERGREEN playing anywhere in NYC, I will go just so I can go to the manager 10 min into the video and demand my money back.  |  IP: Logged Mike Bianchi Film Handler Posts: 40 From: Independence, KY, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-06-2004 05:31 PM                        Hello all - I'm still lurking and occasionally posting. I think the last post says it best - some exec's experiment. Who knows, it might just work. Still, striking a few prints should not have been that prohibitive. Heck, Bubba Ho-Tep started out with just 10 or 12 prints and garnered a big following!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-06-2004 05:37 PM                     Frank said "The mistake is that the stupid filmmaker should have said, "Well, if you think my FILM has merit, Mr. AMC executive, why not invest in a few dozen prints and circle them around the AMC circuit....that's why they call it a CIRCUIT." Frank how silly you are each of those theatres probably has a "scratch-a-matic" installed just think what it would look like  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-06-2004 05:57 PM                     Will AMC charge a lower price than "normal"? The lower quality should be reflected in the ticket price.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 09-06-2004 10:17 PM                     [ 09-08-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.