Movie studios pulling their movies too?

[Bobby Henderson]

As for marketing budget... Sorry, I really call *mostly* bullshit on that one.

I don't care what you call it. I'm 100% correct about indie movies needing marketing help to have any chance attracting audiences at cinemas. Considering the short blip that passes for a theatrical release window I'm more right about this than ever before. There's not enough time in that brief window for word of mouth to be of much help. Movies these days need advance publicity more than ever.

Most members of the general public are not going to make any effort to search out interesting indie type movies. They're going to buy what's familiar. Lawton, OK is not a big movie market. But I've seen quite a few small studio movie releases here and nearly every time I've been almost alone in that auditorium. The indie show would play for a week and get pulled. Hell, this would happen even with movies that had at least some TV advertising.

To this day I think my experience of watching The Usual Suspects was grimly funny. There was nothing wrong with the movie or its presentation quality. It's just that I watched it pretty much by myself in a decent sized auditorium. Weekend evening show no less. Months later it gets released on home video and locals here start finding out about it: "Wow, that was a great movie! It's too bad Lawton's theaters never get movies like that!"


Today an indie movie is at an even worse disadvantage. In 1995 video rental stores were still going strong. So movies like The Usual Suspects at least had some physical retail visibility on store shelves and poster cases. Today theatrical runs are very brief. And when a movie goes to the "home video platform" (streaming really) it gets dropped into a huge pile with other existing movies to be quickly forgotten in the really shitty user interface of some streaming app. I can easily remember all kinds of movies that were released 20 or 30 years ago because they all had long lasting "brick and mortar" retail visibility. There's a lot of movies released just in the past few years I've forgotten were even released in the first place. We're talking award-winning and/or big budget shows. Streaming is where movies go to die.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I don't care what you call it. I'm 100% correct about indie movies needing marketing help to have any chance attracting audiences at cinemas. Considering the short blip that passes for a theatrical release window I'm more right about this than ever before. There's not enough time in that brief window for word of mouth to be of much help. Movies these days need advance publicity more than ever.

Most members of the general public are not going to make any effort to search out interesting indie type movies. They're going to buy what's familiar. Lawton, OK is not a big movie market. But I've seen quite a few small studio movie releases here and nearly every time I've been almost alone in that auditorium. The indie show would play for a week and get pulled. Hell, this would happen even with movies that had at least some TV advertising.

Yeah, it makes no sense to program some movie nobody's ever heard of just for a couple of days and then shove it down into the streaming underworld. But it's entirely up to the studios/producers of those indie movies how they handle their release window. Like I pointed out: A well-run indie studio will give their movie ample legroom before it will be released on any streaming platform. The only thing that's working against them, may be the false precognition in the general public, that they can watch that movie on some streaming service within a few weeks. Then again, what has been learned can also be unlearned.

Also, we're still calling them "Indie movies", that automatically implies movies in genres that not necessarily have a broad appeal. Like mentioned before: nobody is stopping those same producers to make movies armed at a broader audience. The only reason why it wasn't profitable to do so, is because you were releasing those movies in an otherwise overcrowded market. But if the major vendors left the market, there is no good reason why you couldn't also start selling potatoes instead of just specialty imported cheeses.

Most people aren't pioneers, they simply follow the herd and it only needs a few to lead. People will still go out and watch movies, as long as the movies are good...

I'm damn sure that none of the movies that did well in the last year did so, because it had the biggest marketing budget behind it. Heck, I think that the first online advertisements I've seen all year for a movie are for Indiana Jones, I can't remember seeing any other movie being so publicly advertised the last few years. And is it helping? Apparently not much, as Disney will probably close that movie with a $300M dollar gap.

The big studios have another, huge advantage in the form of free coverage by all the news outlets and social media influencers out there. But when Hollywood stops producing movies, they need something else to report, in there is also the opportunity for independent movie producers to get themselves into the news-cycle.

[Lyle Romer]

The cynic in me wonders if this is part of a "starve them into submission" strategy. As long as the movies go unreleased, the actors and writers don't get their cut of the gross, or any residuals.

Except the carrying cost with current interest rates is very high on the big budget stuff. If interest rates were the same as 2 years ago I would be thinking along the same lines.

[Lyle Romer]

One thing I'm hoping will happen in the weeks ahead: Universal and theater chains will extend the 15/70mm and 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer (particularly the IMAX film version).

I didn't pre-order tickets for Oppenheimer at Cinemark's 15/70-capable screen in Dallas when I should have -all thanks to a hail storm from hell on June 15 that upended all sorts of plans. I got serious damage to my house and truck. I had to get the claims process fully in motion before making any plans to drive out of town a significant distance to see a movie. By the time I felt safe to order tickets the shows were pretty much sold out thru August 8. Part of the problem is this Dallas IMAX theater's PUNY seating capacity: just 234 seats. Our Lie-MAX theater here in friggin' Lawton has over 550 seats. So it doesn't take much hype for that theater to fill up its limited number of seats. And we have the "Barbenheimer" pop-cultural phenomenon currently underway.

A lot of these theaters playing Oppenheimer in 70mm have had to fly-in experienced projectionists and set them up in hotels. Obviously these guys can't live in hotels for months on end. It's looking like the 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer could be short-lived in many locations. I don't know how long the 15/70mm shows will run, but it's not looking good for anything past mid-August. If the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes continue into the fall the studios and theater chains may need to book those projectionists on one or more trips.

I really don't care about seeing a d-cinema version of Oppenheimer. If there was no film version of it there might be an outside chance I'd drive across my town to see the movie on our local IMAX digital screen. But I might just as likely wait for it to show up on MAX, Netflix or whatever. I'm sure as hell not driving to OKC or Dallas to see a mostly dialog-heavy 3 hour movie. I'd drive to Dallas to see a 15/70mm version though.

Do yourself a favor and don't miss this movie on the big screen. The IMAX 15/70 blew me away but the movie is incredible on its own and doesn't feel like it is 3 hours long. See my review in the review forum. The Autonation IMAX in Ft. Lauderdale has added shows through 8/17 (all sold out through 8/15). If they keep selling out every showing I would imagine they will keep running it. Hopefully the same happens in Dallas (or you can hop on a flight to Ft. Lauderdale).

[Bobby Henderson]

Driving 200 miles each way to Dallas is enough of an extravagance. I couldn't swing a plane flight simply to watch a 15/70mm movie. I'm hoping the Cinemark Dallas theater will extend its 15/70mm run of "Oppenheimer" and/or do a repeat engagement of it later this Fall/Holiday season. About the only way I'll be able to see the movie on film anytime soon is by catching a 5/70mm show in OKC or perhaps a better theater in Dallas. I may be driving to Colorado soon for a short vacation, so the two Denver area cinemas showing the movie in 70mm could be an option.

Yeah, it makes no sense to program some movie nobody's ever heard of just for a couple of days and then shove it down into the streaming underworld. But it's entirely up to the studios/producers of those indie movies how they handle their release window.

These movie business people, whether they work for a major studio or a smaller less-known outfit, are all stuck in the same convention of thinking. It's all we have to rush this to home video where the real money is made ASAP! News flash to those guys: it's not 2002 anymore. The big money glory days of DVD have been over with for more than a decade. Now they're chasing after diminishing returns with all this streaming shit -which is really steaming shit with what it's doing to the industry.

Physical disc sales are terrible. Some of that is due to the really shitty efforts studios have been putting into movie disc products for the past several years. Consumer behavior has changed too. Many of us learned our lesson of letting disc cases accumlate and eat up precious space in a home. Even with negative aspects of physical media noted there is even less appeal in "buying" a movie from a vendor like Apple, Amazon, etc. Rumor has it Disney is looking to exit the physical media market completely. They're smoking some special kind of weed if they think they'll earn as much money selling movies virtually as they did via retail. They may not even be looking at the numbers closely on specific movie sales. The big studios all seem to be focused on subscription numbers. I think the traditional cable TV industry is going to see the cord-cutting syndrome worsen for them. But the streaming companies will probably see their fortunes sour too. I think the general public is going to pull back on all this shit.

The point is the real money to be made now with movies is back in the commercial cinemas. Home video isn't what it used to be at generating revenue.

20 or so years ago, when the theatrical release window was more healthy, smaller "indie" movies could have pretty long runs in theaters. In North America a typical movie would start out playing exclusively in a couple or so theaters in NYC, LA and maybe Toronto. The critics would write up their reviews and provide a publicity boost. Then the movie would "platform" out to more cities. As momentum grew the show would expand out into wider release and cover most of the country.

Today those slow, momentum-building kinds of movie release patterns aren't nearly as common anymore. The "indie" movie of today might play at Alamo Drafthouse and debut on Netflix at the same damned time. A month later most people have forgotten about the movie. It's disappeared into the abyss of the Netflix user interface: row after row after row of random stuff.

Also, we're still calling them "Indie movies", that automatically implies movies in genres that not necessarily have a broad appeal. Like mentioned before: nobody is stopping those same producers to make movies armed at a broader audience. The only reason why it wasn't profitable to do so, is because you were releasing those movies in an otherwise overcrowded market. But if the major vendors left the market, there is no good reason why you couldn't also start selling potatoes instead of just specialty imported cheeses.

The indie movie industry is hardly anymore creative than the major studios. They all have their own conventions of movie-making, what kinds of stories they want to tell and the style in which they need to be told.

I'm damn sure that none of the movies that did well in the last year did so, because it had the biggest marketing budget behind it.

Advertising is still crucial. But a big ad budget is no guarantee of putting butts into seats. The public may be very aware a certain movie was just released, such as the newest Indiana Jones installment. If the public doesn't find the movie appealing they're not going to show up. The general public has far more entertainment options and other ways to kill time than they had 30 years ago.

[Marcel Birgelen]

These movie business people, whether they work for a major studio or a smaller less-known outfit, are all stuck in the same convention of thinking. It's all we have to rush this to home video where the real money is made ASAP! News flash to those guys: it's not 2002 anymore. The big money glory days of DVD have been over with for more than a decade. Now they're chasing after diminishing returns with all this streaming shit -which is really steaming shit with what it's doing to the industry.

...

The point is the real money to be made now with movies is back in the commercial cinemas. Home video isn't what it used to be at generating revenue.

There have to be people in the industry with decision power that recognize that the REAL money is in commercial exhibition and not in streaming. The only company that seems to make money on streaming right now is Netflix and even they are struggling to balance their books, while most what they produce is forgettable serial drivel that will never see a cinema, most of which barely survives a single season.

Meanwhile, the cinemas are still open for business, but have no material to show their audiences. This is a massive opportunity for anybody that wants to step up their game. Anybody that's wise enough to give movies their proper theatrical runtime, that is and actually wants to deliver what audiences want to see, not some "made by committee" 13-in-a-dozen templated bullshit, but original stories, brought to life on the big screen...

The indie movie industry is hardly anymore creative than the major studios. They all have their own conventions of movie-making, what kinds of stories they want to tell and the style in which they need to be told.

Probably because they're stuck in the same downward spiral the big boys are stuck in. But it's far easier to get out of that state for a small shop than a massive oil-tanker-sized organization like Disney. All other ships may have failed once they have turned their ship around. The time is now.

Advertising is still crucial. But a big ad budget is no guarantee of putting butts into seats. The public may be very aware a certain movie was just released, such as the newest Indiana Jones installment. If the public doesn't find the movie appealing they're not going to show up. The general public has far more entertainment options and other ways to kill time than they had 30 years ago.

Advertising will not be completely irrelevant, but has seldomly been the reason for a failed release in the last few years. The reason why movies didn't make money at the box office is because either they sucked (and this really is the PRIME reason), or the studios botched up the release to such extend that hardly anybody had the time to show up at the theater to actually see it. It's hard for me to grasp that so many indie producers still manage to completely screw over their releases, by relying on some borderline competent distribution companies that can't even manage a global release... I know, because I've regularly have to deal with some of them and they either don't have the reach or simply don't understand that in this day and age, you can't delay the release of the same movie for months on end between "regions" while also dumping it on streaming in some other countries. Your movie will go to shit as it will end up on every pirate site out there and nobody will give a flying f*ck anymore when you actually manage to get the movie into cinemas in their distribution region...

[Geoff Jones]

Our industry stiil offers lots of grandeur. The size of the picture, and especially the size of the sound. But when you don't mind watching a movie on a 5" phone screen, in 30 second bits between text messages, the grandeur doesn't matter. It's not a requirement for people. Who knew?

What grandeur?

For decades, cinema chains have twinned and then demolished most of the grand cinemas. Meanwhile, they built thousands of tiny auditoriums so they could start the latest blockbuster every half hour. They taught moviegoers that convenience is the only thing that matters, and moviegoers got the message. What’s more convenient than watching a movie whenever you want, wherever you want?

“The size of the sound” is the easiest thing to reproduce (or surpass) at home, and at home, you know you’ll have the correct channel coming from each speaker, something you can’t count on at the chains these days.

I see so many interviews with cinema executives whining about the shrinking release window. If your whole business model is dependent upon a monopoly, maybe it isn’t a very good model.

Where’s the cinema chain advertising every single showing on a 50-foot wide screen?

Where’s the cinema chain touting 4K resolution in every auditorium? Where’s the chain that publishes its sound channel configuration? 99% of all showings are mystery meat.

Where’s the chain touting (and enforcing) zero tolerance for disruptions? (Note: if you’ve got waiters scurrying back and forth through the entire movie, you don’t get points for this one.)

When movies get released on streaming with short (or non-existent) windows, cinema chains always seem to put them on their smallest screens (out of spite?). What the actual fuck? Why aren’t those titles on the biggest screens? Why aren’t those theaters saying, “Sure, you can stream it at home on your 80-inch HDTV… or you can come see it on our massive 80-foot screen and be blown away.”

Instead, the vast majority of chains book the exact same title on every single one of their premium screens. If you want to see anything else, you’re stuck watching it in one of those small auditoriums where you’ll be lucky to get the entire picture projected on the screen.


It would be interesting to see what would happen if a theater chain ever decided to actually compete with other chains and home theater. But I don’t have any hope that will ever happen. They’re too dependent on their monopolies.


Caveat: These comments are about the typical experience found at theaters run by the big chains (where most moviegoers see their movies in the U.S.), not the small or indie exhibitors that seem to have their acts together.

[Mike Blakesley]

“The size of the sound” is the easiest thing to reproduce (or surpass) at home

That's horseshit, unless the average "home theater" (which is basically a TV on the wall in the living room, in most houses) is 3,000 square feet or more. You can match the volume, sure. But the sound field (and the comparatively tiny picture) will still seem like you're watching it on TV. As for your "What grandeur" question, my next sentence after that said exactly what I meant. Naturally a dedicated "Home Theatre" will create a really good experience, but you're still watching TV within your same old four walls. Is this the future? Staying home all the time?

Of course a little shoebox auditorium in a 24-screen plex is not going to give a fantastic experience like a big auditorium would. But what do you expect? Theater chains can't snap their fingers and evolve the industry into having 100% 50-foot screens overnight. The industry is going to evolve -- it's got no choice -- but it can't happen immediately unless you want to see prices go even farther into the stratosphere.

I see so many interviews with cinema executives whining about the shrinking release window. If your whole business model is dependent upon a monopoly, maybe it isn’t a very good model.

Well, I'm not sure what the best alternative would be, besides presenting the movies that the majority of people want to see. If you can figure out a way to get hundreds of people to come to movies they've never heard of, you'd be a rich person.

Where’s the cinema chain advertising every single showing on a 50-foot wide screen?

This will probably happen someday. Each building will have 4 to 8 screens, not dozens. But if people don't go, it won't be successful.

The studios could revive the industry with a single action: Increase the video window and promote it as such. Heck they could even add a percentage point to the film rental and call it "video window promotion fee." I'm not sure what they can do about privacy. Probably nothing. I can't come up with all the answers to fix everything, I'm only one person.

[Geoff Jones]

That's horseshit.

Don’t take it from me, take it from Joe Redifer.

Next, the sound sucked the big one. Or maybe the impotent one. The left surround was absolutely louder than the right, and it was rarely present to begin with. There was no discernible stereo separation from the speakers behind the screen. I could hear some subwoofer, too bad it was the subwoofer from whatever movie was playing in the adjacent auditorium bleeding through the walls. That's all I could hear though as the subs in this auditorium were either off or physically missing.

Can someone tell me why movie theaters still exist? TVs at home with HDR engaged are much brighter with far better contrast and color. A sound bar purchased at Target gives better audio. I haven't seen a good presentation in a real movie theater since I projected myself. At least at home I have consistent quality, way brighter and better image and infinitely better audio.

(emphasis mine)

I have have a very basic 15-year-old 5.1 setup. R and L channels are about 10 feet apart. I get decent stereo (and surround) separation and punchier bass than most local cinemas.

My “comparatively tiny picture” is 2.39 and 125” diagonal.
If I sit close enough to get an image that size at many tiny commercial auditoriums, the screen perforations will be visible.

My setup is nothing like watching a movie in the Stag Theater, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what AMC and Regal have to offer. If release windows grow to a year and nothing else changes, I’ll happily wait a year.

(And I would LOVE to never watch another movie at home. I would gladly pay to see every single movie, new and old on the big screen, if I could be assured of a good presentation. But the simple fact of the matter is that most cinema chains deliver a profoundly shitty experience.)

[Jon Dent]

I think many chain theaters still don't have dedicated subs in their smaller rooms, either from noise concerns or cheapness.

A closed down AMC we looked at had three theaters but only one (the 'premium' screen) had a subwoofer.

[Mike Blakesley]

Well then stay out of the chains, if you know they're so bad. Aren't there any locally-owned, cared-about theaters in your vicinity? I guess we have to keep in mind that both you and Joe R. live in Colorado, which (apparently, from many posts in the past by him and others) is home to the absolute worst theaters in the country. Nobody should go to movies there anymore. Although I will say that when we had our regional NATO convention in Colorado Springs a few years ago, the theater we had all our screenings in was very good. I forget the name of it.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The biggest problems with the chains around here isn't so much their initial installs, which usually are pretty decent. Yes, most of those theaters are basic "black boxes" with just the bare minimum decor, which may not really give the sense of grandeur, but once the movie has started, that "deficiency" fades away anyway.

The biggest problem is upkeep. The fact that there is nobody around is actively managing the booth anymore will allow for stuff to go unnoticed for prolonged times. Bad focus, bad convergence, mediocre light levels and badly calibrated audio are the most common issues. Also, anything presented in an odd aspectratio will end up being messed up.

You really should support your local cinema, many of which may have a hard time hanging on, but many of them, fortunately, are still committed in bringing you the best show possible. It's those places that should receive your support.

[Martin McCaffery]

I've given up trying to watch movies in any theatre but my own (and I know what problems we have). I was talking to someone the other day who still sees just about everything at the local chain theatres (and will even drive a hundred or more miles to see something special). He described the "best" of the three chain theatres in town as "the one that smells least like piss."

Nonetheless, Barbie is killing it at those theatres. And Sound of Freedom week three beat week one of Oppenheimer.

[Lyle Romer]

The biggest problems with the chains around here isn't so much their initial installs, which usually are pretty decent. Yes, most of those theaters are basic "black boxes" with just the bare minimum decor, which may not really give the sense of grandeur, but once the movie has started, that "deficiency" fades away anyway.

The biggest problem is upkeep. The fact that there is nobody around is actively managing the booth anymore will allow for stuff to go unnoticed for prolonged times. Bad focus, bad convergence, mediocre light levels and badly calibrated audio are the most common issues. Also, anything presented in an odd aspectratio will end up being messed up.

You really should support your local cinema, many of which may have a hard time hanging on, but many of them, fortunately, are still committed in bringing you the best show possible. It's those places that should receive your support.

That's part of why I am willing to pay a premium for Dolby Cinema (usually) or IMAX.....WITH LASER BEAMS. They both have remote monitoring that will get problems addressed in a timely fashion so I can expect everything to function properly. I don't want to pay a premium for something like RPX or another self branded "premium" screen. Sure they use better equipment for the install but it isn't getting monitored or maintained any differently than the standard auditoriums.

[Bobby Henderson]

Meanwhile, the cinemas are still open for business, but have no material to show their audiences. This is a massive opportunity for anybody that wants to step up their game.

No one can make a good movie instantly. It doesn't make any difference if it's a big budget major release or a lower budget "indie" project. Any decent movie often takes years of development before it hits the screen. Even if every part of the process worked at the fastest possible speed we would still be looking at several months or more bare minimum for a movie project to go from script to the cinema screen. The WGA & SAG-AFTRA strikes would likely be done well under that time frame.

No one can make a movie by himself either. It doesn't make a difference if a movie is big or small every one of them requires a lot of people on both sides of this strike for a movie to go into production and make onto cinema screens.

When movies get released on streaming with short (or non-existent) windows, cinema chains always seem to put them on their smallest screens (out of spite?). What the actual fuck? Why aren’t those titles on the biggest screens? Why aren’t those theaters saying, “Sure, you can stream it at home on your 80-inch HDTV… or you can come see it on our massive 80-foot screen and be blown away.”

The sad fact is if those cinemas put a movie already available to stream on TV into their biggest houses they would be playing the movie to mostly empty seats. This is why I believe it is 100% critical to extend the damned release window. The cinema industry is dying a slow death of a thousand cuts under the current (and worsening) arrangement.

Some of us do care about seeing movies on big screens. We care about image and sound quality and will drive out of our way to visit a location offering better presentation quality. But we're in the minority. Most people are only going to look at what something costs. They're always going to choose the cheaper option if it's available. Watching movies at home doesn't suck nearly as bad as it did 20 or more years ago. So they don't feel like they're missing anything by watching the movie at home.

But, yeah, far too many movie theaters can't even manage to get the basics done right. We're talking clean auditoriums and clean restrooms as well as building maintenance. Customer service is often terrible because the big chains play so many games with payroll to keep staff at a bare minimum (that's gets back to the filthy auditoriums and restrooms).

Even with every theater having digital projection and almost every theater having at least 5.1 digital sound it seems like the show quality isn't as good as it was in the 1990's when only a minority of auditoriums had THX certification and/or digital sound. I'm certainly not impressed by the tiny auditorium sizes in many newer locations. Those modest screens don't fill my peripheral vision any more than my 65" HDTV at home.

I'm rarely ever impressed by sound quality in commercial cinemas anymore. Some of it is lack of maintenance by the theater (blown drivers, etc not fixed, sound system not re-tuned in years). Another factor is management turning the volume down too low to make certain "Karen"-types happy. Sometimes it's the damned movies themselves not having a good audio mix (I've heard a decent number of Atmos-in-name-only mixes). That's because most movie production provide very little time (or budget) to the audio side of the production. So it's all done in a mad rush. THX and the principles behind it are effectively dead. "Good enough" is the standard now.

And, yeah, it isn't all that hard to configure a fantastic sounding audio system at home if you want to spend the money on it. My old 5.1 system still sounds pretty good. Hell, there are Atmos-capable home rigs that can support dozens of speakers, very much like a cinema arrangement. Again, I think only a small minority of people care about this. Most seem happy with the speakers built into their TV screen or the speakers in a sound bar. Home theater equipment sales aren't what they used to be, much like the broader downturn in movie disc sales.