|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Exhibition moving to digital? Not so fast
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-28-2009 05:58 AM
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0667854/
quote:
Feb 3 2009 - The conversion of movie theaters from film to digital projection "has virtually come to a halt," IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond has told the London Financial Times. While studios and exhibitors have reached an agreement under which the theater owners would receive a "virtual print fee" for every film they run from digital media to cover the costs of the equipment, the economic slowdown has made it difficult for the exhibitors to borrow money. Gelfond, however, said IMAX plans to open 100 digital 3-D screens worldwide in 2009. The FT said that by next month, there will only be a total of 1,500 digital 3-D screens in the U.S., far fewer than the 5,000 that DreamWorks Animation had counted on for the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Gelfond said that the movie will appear on 200 IMAX screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 02-28-2009 01:19 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
but not save me anything or increase my grosses nearly enough to pay the tab.
True Mike - in 1972, I was working in a 'mom and pop; theatre called the Royal in Rigby, Idaho. It definitely was a barn when I started there in 1971, yet I help really clean it up to where it was making a profit for the owner. The booth was E-7's with Strong Mogul lamphouses. The booth did have Motiograph Mag Stereo, but a previous owner yank all the stereo stuff out yet the penthouses were left on the machines and the ALTEC-LANSINGS were left behind the screen.
I made a mention of putting back in that stereo, but the owner basically said like you said above "If it increases my tix sales, then I might think about it, otherwise, it's an idea we won't do yet..He knew that magnetic was on it's way out and I didn't know anything about seeing the business end of the industry then.
Later on that summer, he went automated, I lost my job and in 1980 the place burnt down due to a bad coal furnace, but some would point to arson due to his financial ruin later on when his business was faltering.
So, if the entire town of Forsyth wants digital and signed a contract to attend his theatre on a daily basis, then it would be profitable for Mike to switch....but, stay with film, stay with film.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-28-2009 05:51 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Like many short media stories that try to sum something up in one paragraph, this one has a big problem: Only ONE studio (Paramount) has come up with an agreement to pay VPFs to exhibitors directly.
And even then, Paramount only does it in the USA (and Canada, I think). The rest of the world can kiss their behinds.
Oh well. Every month that passes that way, it's another month that Kodak/Fuji can breath better. It totally blows me that in so many years they still haven't offered a straight, no bull, no intermediaries, swap of cash for not-striking-prints. It's not rocket science.
Makes no sense to me. They are the ones to greatly benefit shortly down the road after everbody converts. Yet they expect theaters to pony up millions with virtually nothing to gain.
At this rate, theaters are just gonna bypass the entire 2K wave, just like they did the 1.2K wave, and wait for better times ahead way down the road.
At least with a decent 4K projection theaters have some quality cards Imax-like to play to move people away from their 60" HD TV's.
By the time 4K projectors arrive to cinemas (not counting Sony), I'm afraid homes are gonna be having 120" 8K 3D screens in their houses for $3000 (just joking, but at the rate this whole thing is going, I wouldn't be all that surprised).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-01-2009 03:23 PM
I strongly disagree with the "legal complexity" of VPF. It is but an excuse to force intermediary controlling groups (i.e. whatever AccessIT is called now) into the equation.
For me, the "legal" implications are VERY simple. All I need is a piece of "signed" paper from my distributor that states:
"Dear cinema owner,
Starting today and until the year 2020, if you don't participate in any other VPF agreements for which we provide funds, we will be giving you a $1000 discount/kick back on every film you exhibit from us digitally for at least 1 week on DCI approved equipment instead of in 35mm. This offer is only valid til 2020. Thank you."
Obviously you would need to word that a bit better and probably make it 2 pages long explaining what VPF is and writing up a list of currently DCI approved equipment and a disclaimer that equipment outside that list may not be elegible for the discount, but no need for 90 pages of legal hoola.
It's just an offer to make a discount if their product, booked from them, is shown digital instead of film, that's all.
About 4K, no point in wasting time talking about it as it's not going to (really, aside from Sony and to some extend Imax) happen for a while, although it should. At least we are not stuck at the 1.3K they first touted for DCinema.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-01-2009 04:27 PM
It is.
Just make the offer for a discount to the houses you previously were willing to strike a print for.
Don't make the offer to the rest.
Last I checked, in free countries you could offer "discounts" to good clients.
It's actually the existance of (multiple) aggregators that complicate things. If they didn't exist, the deals would be straight forward.
Before, I was willing to strike a print for you. I now put in writing that, for the next (say) 10 years, if you play my films for at least 1 week within a month (or 3 weeks, or whatever) of its opening, I'll give you (up to, i.e.) a $1000 discount/kick back if you book it digital instead of 35mm.
Done. In one sentence.
As I said, of course, you would need something a bit better and probably 2 or 3 pages long.
But that's all.
All the rest, were excuses to obtain further controlling and financial advantages that, from my point of view, is backfiring.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-02-2009 07:05 AM
quote: Julio Roberto
Makes no sense to me. They are the ones to greatly benefit shortly down the road after everbody converts.
Wrong! People are still falling for this one.
Print "costs" for major entertainment conglomerates are but a tiny fraction of their annual overhead.
For example, back in 2000, print "costs" were just 4% of the average spend per title, and just 12% of the average P&A spend (derived from MPAA data).
Factor in mastering costs for digital, the true costs of "conversion" (including building works etc.), servicing and obsolescence, the need to still produce prints, and so on, and the supposed "cost savings" of digital simply disappear.
This may be why the "conversion" to digital has been somewhat problematic - behind the scenes, the economics simply don't stack up.
In fact, if the film industry really wanted to cut costs it would significantly reduce actors' payments and make serious inroads into marketing costs. The latter is one of the most lucrative aspects of the distribution business.
IMHO I never believed that digital was about improving Cinema at all and in fact is really about something else - power? control?
The truth is out there, as they say.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-02-2009 08:38 AM
quote: Brian Guckian
Wrong! People are still falling for this one.
So in your opinion, who is the one that benefits the most from the digital convertion?
If your answer is only digital equipment manufacturers ... then why are exhibitor buying and distributors paying (VPF through aggregators) if they indeed are the ones to (hardly, according to you) have any benefits at all?
I don't think you understood me. I didn't say distributotrs (in some countries, distributors don't equal studios as much as it does in the USA, i.e) make a LOT of money out of digital convertion.
I said that, out of those affected by digital convertion, they are the ones to gain the most in the long run.
Digital mastering is NOTHING compared to "film mastering" (i.e. putting the DI back to negative/interpositive answer print/release print/Dolby digital/DTS timecode/Crap code, etc).
Once "mastered", digital distribution equals virtually zero (once a high speed digital "internet" link is available) or $10 for a "re-usable lease" on a hard drive.
A 35mm print is a bit more than that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Again, what I meant. DISTRIBUTORS (not only major studios) will benefit the most (that doesn't mean a lot, it means it will benefit more than exhibitors and even more than manufacturers of DCinema) from industry convertion to digital.
I think.
A single distributor has a significant annual bill for dealing (striking/licensing/transporting/warehousing/destroying) with release prints. Of coure, and we ALL know this, no need to be reminded, it is very small compared to their marketing bills.
Production is an entire different beast, and I don't think we should be mixing it with distribution or exhibition.
If digital cinema brings very little benefits to distributors, say only 2% saving of their annual operating costs, very little savings to exhibitors, say 5% in reduced labor costs once increased maintenance/obsolence costs are factored in, then why the hell the industry is converting at all?
To make DCinema manufacturers rich?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic