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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Discussion: Currest state of the Art House Film industry

Author Topic: Discussion: Currest state of the Art House Film industry Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 10-23-2009 09:14 PM                     Greetings to everyone: How impressed are you with the art house industry? Which distributer do you think supports the industry the best? In the last few years movies seem to somehow be more mainstream. Some films feel as thought they came straight from Hollywood. Trailers for many of these films also feel mainstream. The use of "Palm leaves" to encase credits seems no more and deep voice over more common. Sony Pictures Classics seem to still turn out good quality pictures. Fox Searchlight seems somewhat reliable. On the other hand, more often than not Miramax, The Weinstein Company, and Lionsgate seem more geared to cater to Hollywood Theatres. Am I viewing the situation accurately? Mike  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-23-2009 09:54 PM                        Pretty accurate. The art/indie biz did its usual over expansion starting about with Shakespeare In Love and started its equally predictable collapse just in time for the economy to crash I've been in the indie biz for long enough to have seen it happen at least twice before, It's the same old thing, there's a breakout art film, it grosses a ton of money. All of a sudden, the majors have to have art divisions and either create them or buy them, they treat art films like major releases and discover they are profitable, but don't make $100million, and start cutting back on productions until they just have a few they put in the multiplexes, screwing the art theatres, then the biz collapses and we start all over. Unfortuneately, the collapse takes out things like New Yorker, and many good films don't get the support they need. Are you going to the Art House Convergence in January?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 10-23-2009 11:43 PM                        I won't see a movie unless it has palm leaves surrounding critic reviews and film festival awards in the trailer. That means the movie is good, because reviews are always accurate. Anyway, Landmark gets most of the art fare out here and they are absolute shit as far as prices and as far as actual theaters. Why people flock to them is beyond me. I guess when they think "independent", they think "Landmark".  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-24-2009 02:41 PM                        You guys are on the money -- in many ways it's easier nowadays because of Sony Classics and Fox Searchlight and Paramount, it's easier to book product because on the one-stop shopping aspect of it, whereas years ago you found yourself trying to track down small distributors or even the producers who were their own distributors, stalking the film festivals and trying to broker your own deals. That was a lot of work, but sometimes you could get some really sweet deals, other times you would run into producers who thought their good but un-marketed and unheard of film was going to break all box office records for you and they'd want to make the deal accordingly. The upside is that you could actually get terrific titles that you basically would run exclusively only because no one else was booking it. Given the fact that so many art houses have folded compared to the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, for those who stick it out, it's a hard row to hoe; we are part of a larger non-profit; it's much easier if you have the ebb and flow of being sustained in slump times by the rest of the organization until there is a turn-around and you're back on your feet again. Most commercial arthouses survive by dipping into the mainstream pool every so often....no harm in that, in fact, the way we look at it, playing a few commerical hits now and then allows us to run less lucrative titles -- for us that gives the Hollywood stuff a reason to exist.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 10-24-2009 09:28 PM                        The situation in Australia is mixed. Titles from independent distributors can be booked more easily now because they offer most product on hard drive for e-cinema. This frees up the few 35mm copies for the film-only locations. Those locations are becoming rarer on the independent circuit. Some titles are available only in hd. The majors do not support e-cinema; they are waiting for independent cinemas to install dci gear. So if the title is handled by a major distributor, the number of prints depends on their definition. If they decide that it is an art house title, there is little chance of getting a date before dvd release. Any hint that there might be money in a “specialised” release gets prints into multiplexes and you have to wait till they have no more use for the print. Frank is right about mainstream subsidising independent films. Although we regard such films as Mao’s Last Dancer and Julie & Julia as mainstream. This produces an equal quantity of complaints that we are going too commercial and we are going too arty.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 10-28-2009 02:24 PM                     As a consumer, i will be frank. With 60 inch and larger HDTVs available and one in my possession, I actually don't even feel the need to watch documentaries or small indies in theaters. I find the whole theatrical distribution of non-nature documentaries to be a just a conceit that it is "theatrical" worthy. Some of the good documentaries that came out which tout various issues would do more good by widening their distribution by being shown on TV a few weeks after a token theatrical release. Same with small indies. If a small indie is going to be shown in a tiny theater and was made with DV or some of the lower quality HD CAMS, then once again, i can watch them on my huge HDTV. If it's really good, then there is some benefit in watching it in the theater with a crowd, but not much. Madstone worked out well in Atlanta. it has a good vibe with a decent mix of mainstream, indie, and foreign movies. It's too bad the management didn't know how to run a business. We may also have way too many people making movies when they have no business making movies, and I include the indies in this too. A lot of the indies lately look like spec treatments which are in need of a "mainstream indie"(if that makes any sense) remake with a bigger budget and more accomplished crew.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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.