|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Is It Really True About...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-27-2000 12:48 AM
The theatre industry has some remarkable parallels with the railroad industry, and a lot can be learned from the comparisons.Passenger trains were killed by cars that could run on individual timetables, and had more comfort. Theatres can be somewhat compared to those trains, and films to destinations. The primary difference in the comparison is that when movies are first marketed to the public, the only way to see them (visit that destination) is in a theatre. With the exception of the old Key West railroad, no railroad ever had the advantage of no competing road for automobiles. If and when that exclusive release to theatres is lost, then theatres will, with a few exceptions, die off. Hopefully, that won't happen for many years. However, if cable or satellite systems ever succeed in a "restraint of trade" suit against the distribution timetables, or the number of theatres falls to a point where more money can be made through immediate direct distribution to the consumer, then all bets are off. In another comparison, neither trains nor theatres make efficient use of land, and the cost of land is always increasing, decreasing profit margins. Both trains and theatres use a location intensely for a very short period of time, and most of the time the tracks lie empty and the seats unfilled. Compare that to a road that carries cars and trucks all the time, and television or storefronts that make product available to customers all the time. Inefficient methods of distribution usually are abandoned over time. The long range outlook for theatres isn't good unless some new technology, such as a real 3-D or William Castle effect, makes them unique in the way they show product. As for the current "crisis," the second tier of exhibitors are now making their moves. I've read of three new companies reportedly breaking into the Miami market within the past month. If anything, this crisis has broken the stranglehold of the majors, who can no longer afford to force out small competition by building across the street from them. Now is a _great_ time for anyone starting up a small circuit. Conditions may never be this good again.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-27-2000 03:53 PM
I think that is an incomplete response.First, it doesn't take five screens to do an hour on the hour schedule for a film. Second, it doesn't take into account the pressures from the distributor to run multiple screens in order to obtain the product. Most of the time, there is no alternative. Third, it doesn't address the idea that when some people try to attend a movie and get turned away, that they may never return. Fourth, on the other side, it doesn't examine the possibility of building and keeping a mixed audience at a location. I've seen theatres that had a devoted art and foreign product clientelle lose those customers because summer blockbusters took all the screens for a period of weeks, breaking the habit of weekly attendence by these customers. Dumb. Personally, I'd think long and hard before devoting more than two screens to a film if I had other product worth showing. OTOH, we had a single print of Batman at one location where NOBODY was seeing any other film, and EVERYBODY wanted to see Batman. In a seven screen theatre, we ran the single print on the Friday and Saturday night shows through five projectors before it hit the take-up platter. It was a joy to behold. The real financial damage to theatres is often caused by distribs not wanting a print pulled early, even though it might only make a few hundred dollars in a week. This limits concession income, and presents an appearance of the theatre being deserted to any customer that does come.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-27-2000 04:15 PM
Jerry,I was intrigued with your railroad analogy. I submitted your comments to my father (the railroad king) to get his comments. "I want to think about this for a while--like on Cape Cod--but if this theory were true why haven't home video and TV destroyed the movie theatre? It seems to me that people go out to the movies precisely because they want to go out, they want to get out of the house, make it a social event (dinner plus movies, movies and drinks afterwards etc), The whole idea that people want to do their shopping "on line” at home, watch movies at home etc is basically flawed. Human beings are primates and social animals---why do you think malls are so popular? Railroads have not gone out of business because there are some things they do better than any other mode of transportation--moving bulk commodities like coal and grain. They are also more fuel-efficient than trucks and can move goods over longer distances at lower cost There must be something that the traditional box movies theatre does (or can do) better than TV or video that has kept them alive until now. I am not sure what it is." My father the railroad king. (We all know what we do better than TV or video.) While he totally ignored the distribution question, I think he hit the nail on the head. Going to the movies is a social activity. If a teenager no longer has a movie theatre to go to on a date and the next best thing is watching television in one or the other's home, they will find a new activity to engage in away from home. Half the time I go to the movies to get out of the house.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-27-2000 11:21 PM
The answer to why tv didn't kill movies is in the time between first run and when the product hits the glass onion. TV almost did kill movies when it first came out. There is no question that it dealt movies a blow from which they never recovered. If people attended in the same proportion that they did prior to television, theatres would be the major force in the economy. It was primarily the threat of TV that generated interest in color film, 3-D, various versions of scope and Cinerama.Video rentals and the short window for second run HAVE effectively killed the "dollar" theatres that were popular a few years back. If that window were expanded again, you would see a resurgence of those theatres. Exhibition depends on that window of exclusivity more than you might think. As for movies being a social activity, I'm not sure I buy that any more. If it were true, how do you explain the demise of the "social" experience than seeing a film at a drive-in, where customers go from car to car, and chat during the film? People are becoming increasingly wary of large groups, with the exception of sports events and concerts, where there are plenty of police visible. Some more theatre/railroad comparisons: Film developed during late 1800s Railroads developed during late 1800s Early movie companies made their own cameras and projectors. Early railroads made their own locomotives and cars. Theatres highest popularity was between 1900 and 1950 (While there are more people attending now, the percentage of people attending has steadily dropped.) Rail travel highest popularity was between 1900 and 1950. (While there is more freight now, the number of shippers using railroads has steadily dropped.) Early exhibitor corporations were dominated by legendary ruthless barons Early rail corporations were dominated by legendary ruthless barons Projectionists unionized, yet the union has weakened over the past 30 years. Railway workers unionized, yet the union has weakened over the past 30 years. Exhibitors do not produce a product, but depend on other sources. Railways do not produce a product, but depend on other sources. Early projectors were fueled by carbon rods. Early locomotives were fueled by carbon in the form of coal. Early projectors were hand cranked. Early locomotives were hand fired. Early theatres were fire traps with dangerous nitrate film. Early trains were firetraps with coal stoves and kerosene lanterns. Modern projectors are driven by electric motors. Modern locomotives are driven by electric motors. The government controlled film with censorship during the time around WW II The government controlled the railroads during the time around WW II Exhibition came to be dominated by a few companies that gobbled up the smaller companies. Railroads came to be dominated with a few companies that gobbled up the smaller companies. Theatres are operated with fewer personnel than during the glory years, to save payroll expense. Railroads are operated with fewer personnel than during the glory years, to save payroll expense. Theatres companies build big, but skimp on upkeep and repairs. Railroads build big, but skimp on upkeep and repairs. There is a great nostalgia for the glory days of film, with vintage memorabilia fetching high prices. There is a great nostalgia for the glory days of railroads, with vintage memorabilia fetching high prices. Tickets are needed to see a film. Tickets are needed to ride a train. Food is a secondary service of theatres. Food is a secondary service of passenger trains. Theatres must operate on a timetable to maximize operations and avoid problems. Railroads must operate on a timetable to maximize operations and avoid problems. The list goes on and on. The parallels are uncanny.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Erik Schill
Film Handler
Posts: 38
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-27-2000 11:47 PM
I think the problem with the companies losing money is because the market is WAY TOO over saturated. Ok I live in Rochester Ny, a city with about 175,000 people, and dwindling fast with the demise if kodak and zerox in our area, yet we have our theatre(12 screens) a Cimimark 4 miles away (18) 3 Reagles (13,16,18), a Lowes(10 I beleive), had a General, went under, plus a few independants here and there. I hate to tell the movie people, but nothing out has titantic appeal, I don't see any 13 year old girls running to see any of the movies that are out 10-15 times. so when you have a city with 175,000 people and you have a movie such as the Grinch your gonna have it on up to 20 screens at the same time, and all the theatres around here run 6 shows on weekends so that is 120 shows per day, and average large house around here is about 550, so that's 66,000 right there, that's almost half the city, so in order to sell out these show, you would have to have every single person with in 20 miles come to see this movie on 1 weekend, not gonna happen. Plus they make these places bigger and bigger, then they have to raise prices, and that makes customers even more pissed off. Ticket prices around here are actually pretty low compared to syracuse and albany. An evening show is $7. HOWEVER a large popcorn is $6.47, and a large drink is 5.07, every saturday night when I'm downstairs (fofilling my supervisor dities) one out of every five people that come up to the line bitch because for a couple and their 2 kids to go to the movies, their looking to drop about $50, and in this area with unemployment so high, cause our 4 leading employers are having serious problems, odds are only about 10-15% of the public ever goes out to see movies
| 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.
|