Classic Films Belong on the Biggest Screens

[Geoff Jones]

Classic films^[1] should be shown on the largest screen in the complex.

A classic showing is competing with home theater, where fans can already watch their favorite movies on screens upwards of 70, 80, or 100 inches. Screen size is the only way cinemas can compete with home theater, yet classics are often shown on screens that are perceptively no bigger than a decent home theater (depending on seating distance). If cinemas want to wow moviegoers (and make them want to come back), they should show classics on the biggest screen in the complex.

But this isn't just about making fans happy: classics can can easily sell more tickets than new releases.^[2]

In some markets, Alamo Drafthouse shows classics on their largest screens and appears to be very successful with it.

In Colorado, however, the Westminster Alamo Drafthouse runs classics on small screens, and loses money doing this. Over the past three days, they showed Raiders of the Lost Ark on small screen while F9 played on their 60' wide "Big Show" screen. Raiders drew consistently larger crowds than F9.

Here's a visual representation of what that looked like:

RotLA F9 Film-Tech.png

This wasn't a one-time thing. It happened across four different showings of Raiders. Here's the data I observed by looking at the seating charts immediately before showtime (with one exception^[3]).

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK						F9
Day	Time	Seats sold	Capacity	% Sold		Time	Seats Sold	Total Seats	% Sold	Diff
Monday	2:30	50	115	43%		3:20	38	245	16%	-12
Monday	6:00	97	115	84%		7:00	30	245	12%	-67
Tuesday	6:00	29	115	25%		7:00	15	245	6%	-14
Wednesday	6:00	18[3]	115	16%		7:00	24	245	10%	+6

The same thing occurred at their Sloans Lake location, which initially only had a single Monday showing. Raiders sold 94% of a 118-seat theater while at the same time, F9 sold 27% of their largest, 196-seat auditorium. To their credit, Sloans Lake added two showtimes for Raiders in their large screen (at the last minute) at a less-than-convenient 10:25 PM time slot on Friday and Saturday. (I went. It was magnificent.)


Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't unique. This happened a week or so earlier with Last Crusade vs The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard. And no, it isn't just an Indiana Jones thing. This happened repeatedly pre-pandemic with all sorts of movies, and it looks like it will happen repeatedly over the next several weeks with T2, JAWS, Pulp Fiction, Austin Powers, Top Gun, and maybe even Eastern Freaking Promises.

The same thing happens with the big chains. When AMC, Regal, or Cinemark show classics, they're usually on smaller screens, yet they almost always draw larger crowds than whatever new release is showing on the largest screen at the same time.

In the year or so before the pandemic hit, Harkins was doing it right. They were running their Tuesday Night Classics on their premium screens and drawing larger crowds than the new releases that got bumped out for that showing. Sadly, they have not continued this since reopening.


Here's how cinemas lose money by not showing classics on their largest screens:

• Some fans look at those showings and think: I'll pass. That isn't much better than what I've got at home.
• Some see seating charts like the one above and think: There aren't any good seats left. I'll pass.
• And some who attend must surely come away feel a little underwhelmed, and less likely to make the effort in the future.

This can't be the result of studios demanding their new releases play on the largest screens for X weeks, because:

1. Alamo regularly bumps new releases off the largest screens in some markets.
2. Many chains run two (sometimes three) different films on their largest screen in a single day, often from different studios.
3. No one has ever reported a studio punishing a cinema for bumping a new release to show a classic.

Obviously, I'm passionate about this. Over the years, I've taken my teen daughters to see countless classics on the big screen. I want to continue to do so, and I want it to be an epic experience every time.

I also want quality cinemas to make lots of money so that they will continue to operate. It's a win-win.

It makes no sense to me that cinemas aren't showing classics on their largest screens. They're failing their customers and they're leaving money on the table.

If you are in a position to help make decisions about this, please look at the data for your theater and your competitors and see if it might make sense in your market to play classics on your largest screen.


Geoff





^[1] For the purposes of this discussion, I maintain that a classic film is any film worth revisiting on the big screen.
^[2] Obviously, a big new release will usually sell more tickets on its opening weekend. This isn't about showing classics instead of new releases. It's about intermingling them with new releases. And no, it may not work in every single market.
^[3] Raiders might have sold more tickets for this showing. I was unable to check the seating chart immediately prior to show start.

[Marcel Birgelen]

While I completely agree with you, one of the problems here withholding them from showing Raiders on their biggest screen may simply be, because of their booking arrangements they made for F9. Those arrangements probably state that they need to keep it on one of their biggest screens for the first two weeks or so...

[Geoff Jones]

While I completely agree with you, one of the problems here withholding them from showing Raiders on their biggest screen may simply be, because of their booking arrangements they made for F9. Those arrangements probably state that they need to keep it on one of their biggest screens for the first two weeks or so...

This assertion always comes up without any evidence, yet there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Alamo bumped F9 from their largest screen in favor of Raiders in one of their D.C. area theaters (and possibly others).

Before the pandemic, Alamo routinely bumped new releases from their largest screens in multiple markets to show classics.

Other chains often show more than one new release (from different studios) in their largest auditorium on the same day. (e.g. a kid-friendly matinee and a more adult title in the evening)


Wait... maybe each studio has a clause in their contracts that is specific only to the Northwest suburbs of metropolitan Denver!

[Gordon McLeod]

Normally a new first run requires it get the largest house on opening sometimes for several weeks before being moved to a different screen that is the norm most studios require of booking

[Mike Blakesley]

I agree the best movies deserve the best size of screen, but.....The picture size is NOT the only way we compete and maybe not even the most important way. The main way, to me, is the SOUND. Most people are just sitting in their living room with the TV on -- they usually don't have "dedicated" theater rooms. I would guess the majority of home setups are still somewhere between "shitty" and "substandard" when it comes to sound. Plus in a theater you have the overall size of the room that makes the whole thing just seem bigger, even if the screen isn't all that big. It's the SIZE OF THE SOUND that the home usually can't compete with.

The majority of people are still watching on sets that are 60" and under, I think...although that average is going up all the time of course.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Big room, big problems... While I love big rooms, especially old cinema palaces, they don't necessarily offer the best experience to watch a "modern" movie and I'd say that in this aspect, the Indiana Jones movies are still modern action and adventure movies.

I guess more important than pure screen size is room geometry, as in how big is the screen compared to the room and how are the seats positioned in front of it.

Obviously, a big room makes a great impression when you go in, but once the movie has started, the importance of that starts to fade away and the technical aspects become important.

This assertion always comes up without any evidence, yet there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Alamo bumped F9 from their largest screen in favor of Raiders in one of their D.C. area theaters (and possibly others).

Before the pandemic, Alamo routinely bumped new releases from their largest screens in multiple markets to show classics.

Other chains often show more than one new release (from different studios) in their largest auditorium on the same day. (e.g. a kid-friendly matinee and a more adult title in the evening)

Wait... maybe each studio has a clause in their contracts that is specific only to the Northwest suburbs of metropolitan Denver!

The contracts they have with the studios are usually under NDA, so we don't know what kind of clauses they have in there. Alamo Drafthouse is known for their special screenings, like their quote-alongs and sing-alongs, so they may have some exceptions in there, but those exceptions may also differ between studios and even between releases.

I agree with you that they're leaving potential money on the table in the case you demonstrated. The rental they'll be paying for Raiders and other classics will probably be much lower than what they're paying for F9 and the "classics" seem to be near-sellouts during some evenings. So I see two possibilities here: either their management is piss-poor or they do have certain binding clauses that not allow them to switch theaters. That "or" is not mutually exclusive...

[Leo Enticknap]

Distributors will also tailor conditions to individual sites, too. Chains will have bookers who negotiate with the studios' people over this. What Geoff may have been observing is the result of a deal whereby if a new release in Screen 1 underperforms on the opening weekend (i.e. ticket sales are below an agreed figure), the theater can move it to a smaller house if they wish. I've worked at at least two theaters in which the opening of some new movies was done under such an agreement. This led to some hauling around of 6,000ft reels at the end of the night on Sunday! Nowadays, a few clicks of the mouse at a TMS, and hoping that the new KDMs arrive in time, would do the same job.

Big room, big problems... While I love big rooms, especially old cinema palaces, they don't necessarily offer the best experience to watch a "modern" movie and I'd say that in this aspect, the Indiana Jones movies are still modern action and adventure movies.

Agreed completely. I tuned this theater last week: getting a decent X-curve on all the channels was simply impossible, even with an array of eight mics, an Octacapture, and Smaart. There were spikes in some of the bands that simply could not be tuned out, and pretty much nothing above 4KHz. And then there is the 170ft throw to a screen that is only 27ft across, with a native aspect ratio of 1.33 (thanks to the proscenium arch stage). It's a beautiful auditorium and a lovely space to be in, but a cookie cutter, characterless auditorium in a 1990s McMultiplex will give you a better listening and viewing experience.

[Gordon McLeod]

That theatre should tune relatively well if the right speakers were installed and one followed the guidelines for extend HF roll off for large rooms.

[Bobby Henderson]

Classic movies can do well on the biggest screens in a theater complex. But that sales potential is only going to there in certain markets. It will not work just anywhere. I know for certain such an effort would fail miserably here in Lawton.

A theater showing classics on its biggest screen needs to be in a major city metro or some kind of location where it can draw enough of the kind of crowd that would appreciate such a show. Typically that crowd is going to skew more to college educated "artsy" types of people.

The "regular" kind of movie-goer is going to think it's stupid as f*** to pay first run prices (or even premium prices) at a movie theater to watch a movie he can see for cheap on his TV at home. Most Americans fall into that camp. That's why the whole day and date release model, releasing new movies in theaters and in homes at the same time, would be fatal for commercial theaters and disastrous for movie distributors.

[Ed Gordon]

As far as the one or two best and worst experiences of going to the theater, 58 percent selected the sound and picture quality of a film on the big screen that was their favorite, while 45 percent said the best part was the short escape from everyday life. The award for worst parts of going to the movies goes to the high concession prices, which 62 percent of those polled selected; 56 percent of participants, however, said the worst part of going to the theater was rude moviegoers.

Link: https://ew.com/article/2014/01/10/ad...r-movies-poll/

Until the movie makers offer a more equitable share of the revenues with the movie exhibitors, I don't see how exhibitors can stay in business if their primary revenue source in concessions. Maybe the movie makers/distributors are doing all they can to achieve complete vertical integration.

Netflix is a prime example of vertical integration. The company started as a DVD rental business before moving into online streaming of films and movies licensed from major studios. Then, Netflix executives realized they could improve their margins by producing their own original content. Today, Netflix uses its distribution model to promote its original content alongside programming licensed from studios.

As far as screen size goes, if the screen is anything other than wall-to-wall, it is too small. Today Joe Average can buy a very nice digital projector and sound system for about 100 hours of labor. Yes, it is not as good as a well equipped movie theater, but for Joe Average, it is more than enough.

Maybe it is time for theater owners to stop renting films from movie producers, and start renting movie venues to the movie producers.

[Leo Enticknap]

That theatre should tune relatively well if the right speakers were installed and one followed the guidelines for extend HF roll off for large rooms.

It wasn't horrible, by any means, but there is a natural echo you just have to live with, and if you're sitting in the back of the balcony, the image will seem tiny and the surrounds way too loud relative to the stage channels. The ambience of the place more than makes up for it, of course. If you really want to hear the sound a house like that was designed for, you need to raise the organ console and start playing it!

[Geoff Jones]

Here's another visual representation of what it looks like to lose money and disappoint customers by not showing classics on the largest screen in the complex. This is from tonight in Colorado.


T2 BW Westminster 7-19.png


Meanwhile, the same chain DID show Terminator 2: Judgment Day on their largest screens at their D.C. area locations, and they made a killing.



T2 in DC.png

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

One thing often over looked is that Three Strip Technicolor productions up till the switch to Eastman negative camera stock suffered from color fringing because of deficiency's in the three strip camera that could not be overcome. Also, the three matrices used in manufacturing the prints never perfectly registered because of some slight difference in shrinkage. I believe Technicolor recommended a maximum width of 35 feet. Then once that was improved, they said a maximum of 50 feet wide.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Here's another visual representation of what it looks like to lose money and disappoint customers by not showing classics on the largest screen in the complex. This is from tonight in Colorado.

Meanwhile, the same chain DID show Terminator 2: Judgment Day on their largest screens at their D.C. area locations, and they made a killing.

Have you contacted them? Would be interesting to hear from their side what their justification is, if they are willing to provide any.

[Geoff Jones]

Have you contacted them?

You better believe it. I've tried writing directly, commenting on social media, talking with people onsite, etc.

Would be interesting to hear from their side what their justification is, if they are willing to provide any.

Below is a response I got from Alamo before C19 shut everything down:

Hi Geoff,

Thank you for reaching out to us in this regard. I understand that this is an issue very close to your heart and essential to your viewing experience. We take your comments seriously and we are working to provide the best possible experience for each and every one of our guests.

In essence - I agree with you. There are a lot of movies that deserve their space on the biggest screen possible, and our Big Show (Premium Large Format) would be the ideal spot to show the majority of our repertory titles so that they can have their spot in the sun. In the 8 months since our opening, we have worked to show repertory titles in that space, including some of our Signature Movie Parties, TERMINATOR 2 (3D), INCEPTION, the 4K extended re-release of APOCALYPSE NOW, as well as several time-honored classics like METROPOLIS, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (with a live score), and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

In certain situations - the advanced technological capabilities of the Big Show are sought after by larger film distributors and it is requested/required to run a particular film for a minimum amount of time. We welcome the enthusiasm for their production, and we happily provide an opportunity for those new releases to be seen by as many guests as possible by clearing the way for a full, clean run of that film.

In our new and emerging market in Westminster - we're still learning about what "classics" our audience will come out for in those numbers, and that factors into our decision to play those older titles on our big screen. As you may know, the Alamo is a theater built BY film lovers FOR film lovers - so we do want to show these classic films on our Big Show screen. As we can learn from full houses for screenings like THE THING - we can take these opportunities that other Alamo Drafthouse programmers have had years to learn in their own market and apply this to our future decisions for Big Show placement. It's hard to believe we've been here less than a year - but we are learning what Westminster likes to see!

I do appreciate your feedback - and you're right, it isn't easy to book a cinema and land the perfect show in the perfect house every time. I hope that you know that we take these comments to heart and we are working to learn and improve with every film that we show. Thank you for your understanding and your patience - we'll work harder to find space for these classics in the Big Show!

Again, we see the comment about distributors requiring new releases to play on the largest screen. It seems to me that one of the following must be true:

• It isn't actually part of the contract.
• It's in the contract, but the studios don't actually care, because other Alamo locations and other chains bump new releases from time to time.
• The studios include a clause in their contract that allows Alamo to bump classics in some markets but not Denver.

I don't know what to make of the "we're still learning" comment. Isn't "learning from other locations" one of the benefits of franchising? And honestly, classics have outperformed new releases regularly enough in Colorado that it should be fairly obvious from their own data.