Dismal Weekend....

[Steve Guttag]

I showed films for about 18-years on a Cinerama screen (Uptown in Washington, DC). There were zero issues with running drama movies in a 1.85 ratio on the deep curve, with respect to how they looked. Because you are in that middle part of the curve the geometric mismatch of the lens/screen was minimalized. Our 1.85 lenses used Magnacoms and fit our screen pretty well. For 70mm, we had curved field lenses (ISCO)...it was Scope that was the rough format.

The problem with just warping an image for the deep curve (electronically) is that while you can compensate, to a degree, for the geometry...you blow a lot of your resolution once you start morphing pixels and you are still projecting the original imager so focus, loss of light...etc. remain. Ideally, for a projector, you want to "fix" it optically so all of the pixels and light get to the screen. It would cost a small fortune to get custom ground lenses for a 1-off though.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I serviced a chain of theaters that had pretty much all curved screens. I tried to explain the pixel loss to them when you have to mask digital for a curved screen. Seems like they just couldn't grasp that, or perhaps they just didn't care. Of course not so bad with 4K... however, they probably ended up some where around 3K... Seemed like such a waste to me. With Magna-Coms you could actually get a bit of a pincushion effect which might help in some instances fit a 1:85 image on the screen even better.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Most curved screens have a parabolic curvature. Depending on screen height versus curvature, you probably can fit 1.85 pretty nicely on the "least curved" part of the screen, reducing distortions to a minimum.

The counter-intuitive thing with the current DCI specs is that the wider your picture is, the more resolution you're going to loose. You're not allowed to use "non-square" pixels in the delivery format either, so you're gaining nothing in width and are only losing in height in terms of resolution.

With warping and multi-projector setups now entering the realm of DCI, you could technically achieve a digital Cinerama-style 3-projector setup, with digital warping and near-perfect edge blending. Such a setup would be extremely expensive and lack content, but would be entirely feasible on a technical level...

On the other hand, cinema is spectacle. In order for this industry to thrive, we need to continue to step up the game from what people have at home. The question is on which horse to bet... It's often the more practical technical innovations that stand the test of time.

I serviced a chain of theaters that had pretty much all curved screens. I tried to explain the pixel loss to them when you have to mask digital for a curved screen. Seems like they just couldn't grasp that, or perhaps they just didn't care. Of course not so bad with 4K... however, they probably ended up some where around 3K... Seemed like such a waste to me. With Magna-Coms you could actually get a bit of a pincushion effect which might help in some instances fit a 1:85 image on the screen even better.

About 10 years back, I serviced a place that had a 2K projector on a pretty large scope screen. Their zoom motor died, so their solution was to keep the picture zoomed to scope and scale and mask the image "in place" for flat... I guess what remained was closer to 1.5K, including horrible scaling artifacts.

[Geoff Jones]

The screen is huge and curved bet It's more then 60ft.

I'm pretty sure the previous ("Seattle Cinerama") website listed the screen at 60 feet wide, though I did find a page that listed it at 66 feet wide. That is their "standard" screen. Presumably, the deeply curved 90-foot wide 3-strip Cinerama screen is still installed behind the standard screen.

I don't consider the standard screen at Siff Cinema Downtown to be deeply curved, and I haven't percieved any distortion or resolution issues there. (I sit on the 3rd row.)

When a scope image is projected onto a really big screen, isn't it helpful to have some curvature, simply because the sides of the screen are significantly farther away from the projector lens than the center of the screen?



Anyway, to return to the intital topic, this weekend also looks to be dismal, at least for theaters showing Madame Web, which is currently scoring 17% at Rotten Tomatoes.

Meanwhile, theaters showing classics on large screens in decently-sized markets will continue to rake in cash.

• At Alamo Drafthouse Loudoun, Titanic has already sold more tickets for a single showing on their largest screen than Madame Web will probably sell in a day, or possibly even all weekend.
• At Alamo Drafthouse New Mission, multiple showings of Amélie on their largest screen appear to be doing gangbusters. One showing has sold all but 4 seats in their 326-seat auditorium. Amélie!?!

If only more distributors and exhibitors would take note.

[Terry Monohan]

The Seattle Siff Downtown Cinema curved screen is 97 ft wide. They also show many sold out old classic movies now that they have reopened not just first run films. We look forward to their 70mm Film Festival someday.

Thanks Marcel for the information on the new Christie projectors for curved screens.

I still liked the United Artists Theatres set up when they had D-150 with a special curved lens and adjustable masking. How many people here ever had or ran a D-150 Theatre or even seen the system working and what cinema? The Egyptian Hollywood Theatre had one of the best D-150 screens with curtains at one time.. Seems like all the former D-150 Cinemas are now torn down or they have taken out the curved screens.

Jim Cassedy projector dude from SF I know worked at a D-150 Theatre on the East Coast many years ago and he hates curved screens. He must have been miserable working in the UA booth pressing the D-150 masking adjustment panel box.

[Mike Blakesley]

Titanic has already sold more tickets for a single showing on their largest screen than Madame Web will probably sell in a day, or possibly even all weekend

Maybe that's because it's for a single showing, whereas Madame Web will have what, three dozen shows a week for at least three weeks? Maybe more, if it's playing on more than one screen.

If you REALLY want to do a fair comparison, you should consider the grand total tickets sold for the full run of the features being compared.

[Geoff Jones]

Mike, I'm not suggesting that Titanic should get a full re-release, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it should be played on more than one screen at any given location. It should only be the biggest screen. People can already watch it on decent-sized screens at home.


The point am trying to make is that theaters in decently-sized markets can make more money by showing more classic films on their largest screens. The demand is clearly there. The data proves it, over and over again.

The numbers for new releases last weekend were dismal. The numbers for new releases this weekend look like they will probably be dismal. Yet the numbers for classic showings continue to be excellent when they are shown on really large screens in decent-sized markets.


At present, on the largest screen at Alamo Loudun, a single showing of Titanic has outsold ALL ten of this weekend's showings of Madame Web. Titanic has sold 93 tickets. Madame Web has sold 80.

Obviously, both films will sell more tickets over the next several days. But Titanic can only sell 121 more, because that's all that are left. That sure does seem like a missed opportunity to make more money.

Titanic tickets (matinee) are $11.89. Madame Web tickets are $14.64 (matinee) or $16.64. I assume the theater is getting a larger percentage of each ticket sale from Titanic. Regardless, Titanic will certainly have a house full of potential food/ drink/ snack customers

(It's also interesting to note despite the fact that "studio contracts demand that their new releases play exclusively on the biggest screens," Titanic is somehow supplanting Madame Web on their biggest screen on Sunday.)

Here's the data (Note that this auditorium appears to have 8 broken recliners. The exact same 8 seats are "unavailable" day after day. [Circled in red]. I didn't count those seats.):

image.png




Anyway, as you correctly point out, Titanic only has one showing at Alamo Loudoun. What would it look like if they had more? Hmmmmm.

Well, at Alamo New Mission, Amélie is showing 9 times on their largest screen, and it's drawing tremendous numbers. (Except for Saturday night for some reason (I betcha that showtime was added later) and next Monday and Tuesday, which are still pretty far off.)

Below are the current ticket sales for Amélie, starting tomorrow and running through the weekend.

(Note that I didn't include a few Amélie showings on small screens at Alamo New Mission. Those numbers are dismal, which makes sense. People can already watch Amélie on small screens at home. Why would they pay to see it on a small screen in the theater?)

image.png


The data clearly shows again and again and again that there is a large demand to see classic films on large screen in decent-sized markets. Few theaters are meeting that demand.



If only more distributors and exhibitors would take note.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Amélie has gained quite a cult following over the last 20 years and I consider that to be deserved. I'd rather go see Amélie one more time on the big screen than Titanic, which has seen several re-releases over the last 25 years. I don't remember Amélie ever making the biggest screen in the plex during its original theatrical run...

The biggest problems with showing classic movies on the big screen for exhibitors right now are:
- The lack of availability and the effort you have to put into procuring rights and content. Studios like Disney (and most of their subsidiaries) don't license any of their repertoire library at all for single viewings, or it has to be for a VERY HIGH PROFILE, very public event.
- The cost-structuring of most of those licensing agreements.
- The logistical costs involved of getting the actual medium, especially if it's not just a Blu-Ray or DCP on disk, but rather a real 35mm or 70mm print.

As you may know, the "licensing costs" of most stuff theaters play is paid on a "revenue share basis": a certain fraction of your ticket revenue will go to the studio, how big that fraction is, depends on multiple factors, which are a bit out of scope for this discussions and are also often kept under wraps. While most exhibitors will not fancy an empty auditorium, at least this doesn't incur any additional "licensing costs" in this "traditional model". And herein lies the difference with how most repertoire content is licensed: The licensee often demands a considerable lumpsum or minimum guarantee, no matter if you sell zero or 400 tickets. So, if nobody shows up, not only do you need to bear the running costs of an empty theater, but that licensing fee is also gone.

While there certainly is a market for classic movies on the big screen, especially in more densely populated areas, the fact is that you can't just nilly willy book any random classic movie in any big auditorium and expect it to sell out. You need to create awareness of what you're offering. You need to BUILD an audience, which will take time and some considerable investment in those licensing fees that will almost certainly not pay back for the first shows you'll be booking. Unfortunately, you're asking for a lot of stamina in an already volatile market...

[Geoff Jones]

The biggest problems with showing classic movies on the big screen for exhibitors right now are:
- The lack of availability and the effort you have to put into procuring rights and content. Studios like Disney (and most of their subsidiaries) don't license any of their repertoire library at all for single viewings, or it has to be for a VERY HIGH PROFILE, very public event.
- The cost-structuring of most of those licensing agreements.
- The logistical costs involved of getting the actual medium, especially if it's not just a Blu-Ray or DCP on disk, but rather a real 35mm or 70mm print.

And yet, somehow, hundreds of different classics are shown in theaters every year. Many chains have their own classics programs. In the U.S., Fathom Events and Flashback Cinema show classics at multiple chains week after week. Hell, in April, a bunch of Alamo locations are somehow managing to show Dawn of the Dead (1978).which almost never plays in theaters. (Oh, look, it's two months away, but at that location, the single 10pm showing has already sold more tickets than all 4 showings today of Madam Web.)

The licensee often demands a considerable lumpsum or minimum guarantee, no matter if you sell zero or 400 tickets. So, if nobody shows up, not only do you need to bear the running costs of an empty theater, but that licensing fee is also gone.

In that case, it's even more asinine that so many theaters show classics in small auditoriums. They're already paying the lump sum licensing fee, and then they are limiting themselves to only 80 seats??? smgdh

the fact is that you can't just nilly willy book any random classic movie in any big auditorium and expect it to sell out.

I agree 100%. I would never advocate for any nilly willy booking.

You need to create awareness of what you're offering. You need to BUILD an audience, which will take time and some considerable investment in those licensing fees that will almost certainly not pay back for the first shows you'll be booking.Unfortunately, you're asking for a lot of stamina in an already volatile market...

All I'm asking is that the big chains look at their own g.d. data which shows over and over again that they could be making a lot more money by showing more classics and showing them on their largest screens. If that takes a lot of stamina, then, yes, that's what I'm asking for.


______________________________[Chorus]______________________________
Studio contracts require that new releases show exclusively on the biggest screens.
Studio contracts require that new releases show exclusively on the biggest screens.
Studio contracts require that new releases show exclusively on the biggest screens.

Yet, somehow, there are countless examples of new releases sharing premium screens with other titles, including classics.
Hell, Madame Web is sharing premium screens with Bob Marley: One Love for the duration of its opening week.



Look, I get it, showing classics on premium screens might require more work, more effort, more stamina.

It's clear that most chains simply don't have any stamina.

And so, their auditoriums frequently sit empty, one dismal weekend after another.

It feels like the core business strategy of the big chains is: complain about shrinking release windows.

That's pointless. Lengthy release windows aren't coming back. And even if they did, it won't draw the crowds of the past, because consumers simply have too many other options now.

The data clearly shows that exhibitors could make more money by playing classics on really big screens.

If only they had the stamina to do so.




Please allow me to reiterate: my arguments are about large chains operating in decent-sized markets, not indies operating in small rural areas. It's pretty clear that those sorts of locations are getting wrecked by idiotic distributor requierements to play movies for longer than their populations can support.

This whole industry needs a hard reset.

sigh.

[Marcel Birgelen]

@Geoff

You risk comparing rotten tomatoes to more or less rotten potatoes.

Amélie, for example, was a re-release by SPE, probably an attempt to plug the giant hole in their release schedule. So, this could be booked and paid for via the normal route. No real efforts involved there. Also, you benefit a bit from free marketing, as this re-release will certainly be noticed by magazines and papers, some of which may devote an article or two to it. It may even end up in some national trailers. It's certainly not the same as a cinema trying to run their own repertoire programming.

In any case, if we want to show more classic movies in the theater and allow cinemas to program them with more flexibility, then, the solution lies mostly with the studios. First of all, it would require them to open up their vast catalogues, make those movies available via digital means and secondly, it would require them to offer less restrictive and less risky licensing terms towards exhibitors. I'm sure that much more exhibitors would be willing to try to give classic movies more room in their schedule if the licensing terms would be more favorable, especially during otherwise slow days.

While there are many rules to the exception, I also know quite a lot of exhibitors that simply aren't willing to take the additional risk and burden of such an operation. They all cite the possible lack of success and the investment they need to make into building an audience. Also, my own personal experience with showing classic movies on the big screen is that if's often very unpredictable to correctly judge anticipation. A limited re-run of The Big Lebowski sold out twice, while nobody came to see Jurassic Parc, for example.

[Mike Blakesley]

Also, my own personal experience with showing classic movies on the big screen is that if's often very unpredictable to correctly judge anticipation. A limited re-run of The Big Lebowski sold out twice, while nobody came to see Jurassic Parc, for example.

At the risk of further derailing this thread (considering we already have one about classics on the biggest screens), I'll add one more comment: During the awful summer of 2020, we showed many of the "big name" classics - Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Beverly Hills Cop, and others. Out of the whole elite group, the one that did the best for us: The 1976 Clint Eastwood goof-fest, "The Outlaw Josey Wales."

So you just never know. But I DO think the studios could help drive a re-issue with a little promotion effort. At least print up one-sheets.

[Ed Gordon]

I'm pretty sure the previous ("Seattle Cinerama") website listed the screen at 60 feet wide, though I did find a page that listed it at 66 feet wide. That is their "standard" screen. Presumably, the deeply curved 90-foot wide 3-strip Cinerama screen is still installed behind the standard screen.

I don't consider the standard screen at Siff Cinema Downtown to be deeply curved, and I haven't percieved any distortion or resolution issues there. (I sit on the 3rd row.)...

The 90 foot wide Cinerama screen is behind the 60 foot "normal" curved screen and the speakers. To show Cinerama, they literally rip out the "normal" screen and re-construct louvered Cinerama screen. Here is a video of the screen change process:

[Leo Enticknap]

Wow - by rip, the adverb was not a joke or exaggeration! So the regular screen has to be replaced every time there is a Cinerama show. With a new regular screen going in every few months, there is never going to be a problem with gain fade at that theater, I guess!

We have riggers take down screens nondestructively and re-hang them all the time to replace blown speaker drivers. I wonder why this can't be done here.

[Randy Stankey]

We have riggers take down screens nondestructively and re-hang them all the time to replace blown speaker drivers.

What? You take down screens when you replace speaker drivers? I wish I knew that when I was climbing scaffolds behind the screen with only three feet of space while holding a flashlight clenched between my teeth!

Think about it. You're paying a crew of workers to take down one screen, replace it with another then restore it again, later. The original screen would have to be carefully removed, rolled up and stored in a safe place where it won't get damaged or dirty then brought back out to reverse the process.

If the cost of labor and expenses are greater than the cost of just buying a new screen, you're saving money.

If you're only taking a screen down to make speaker repairs then put it back up, again, the logistics are different and buying a new screen would be more of an expense than savings.

Unless, of course, if you're already planning to replace the screen. In which case, you'd be saving money by doing all your repairs at once.

[Marcel Birgelen]

It feels awfully counter-intuitive and wasteful...

They somehow came up with an elaborate system to make the louvered Cinerama screen modular and moveable. Installed a modular and moveable baffle wall and speaker system, but the only way they could think of to get the "regular" screen out of the way is to cut it into pieces?