Movie Theaters vs. Home Theaters

[Richard W. Haines]

Santora,

You are spoiled in more ways than you think living in the Hollywood area. Some of the movie palaces
survive there to showcase industry product on large screens with plush decor. Also, Hollywood insiders
like to show the best quality obtainable of their movies which means the distributors strike special
'Show Prints' for exhibition (prints struck directly off the original camera negative or 'first generation
prints'). For the rest of the country they crank out high speed junk prints three generations removed
from the original from internegatives which lack the sharpness, fine grain resolution and 'snap' of a
camera negative print. The only other venue to see show prints are film festivals or press screenings.
It's a consumer rip off in that the critics are screening the best quality prints for review but the
public is paying to see sub-standard release copies. DVDs are always mastered from first generation
materials (i.e interpositive) or from the camera negative directly which is why the quality control is
superior in that format...given the limitations and differences between pixels and film emulsion.

At least through 1997, there was one other venue to see camera negative prints which were the
35mm to 70mm blow up copies created for the blockbusters. Now we don't even have that option.
Also, there was a brief revival of dye transfer printing (1997-2001) which was formerly known as
"Glorious Technicolor". Dye transfer prints were derived from matrices that were created directly
from the camera negative too. The only top quality mass produced first generation process invented
for color movies. That was eliminated too. It's difficult to impossible to see the best quality prints
outside of LA or festivals and considering the price of admission, I have to consider this before going
to a megaplex to see which I know will be a substandard presentation. I still go once in a while but
I know what I watch will be inferior to the DVD release. When you see a camera negative print and
compare it to a high speed print, it's almost like lifting a veil from the projector lens. It's so much
sharper and richer than the high speed copies.


For those into historical trivia, it was the Technicolor company that introduced high speed Eastmancolor printing back in 1976 and actually received a special Academy Award for this
retrograde technology. This replaced their famous dye transfer process which was shut down
in 1974 ("The Godfather II" was the last true Technicolor release) The other Eastmancolor labs adopted
high speed printing and now it's the only way general release copies are struck. In the fifties and sixties, Eastmancolor prints were struck at a very slow speed (50 feet per minute) to enable the stock to get a good exposure and allow from contrast adjustments. High speed prints are struck at the
rate of 2000 feet per minute (a full 20 minute reel) and you can barely get an exposure at
that rate much less allow for any color or contrast adjustments. It's ironic how Technicolor
was responsible for both the best color process (first generation dye transfer release printing)
and the worst (high speed third generation Eastmancolor printing). 70mm prints were usually
struck directly from the camera negative (whether it was a 65mm original or 35mm blow up)
and at a slow printing speed which is why they looked so good. I don't believe you can make
a quality release print on the high speed machine but I'm not sure the distributors care any more.
The megaplex prints are rushed through processing and then junked immediately after the
film finishes it's brief theatrical run. I guess they're considered 'disposable' copies rather
than "Show Prints" which are saved for later industry screenings.

[JCD]

I don't think I've ever read a post by Mr. Haynes that I haven't come away learning something new.

Thanks again for the interesting info.

JCD

[Bob_99]

I will second that.

Bob

[tonyvdb]

I agree that going out to a movie has its charm but the statement that "you like the BIG screen" doesn't hold any marret as at least in my home theater I sit close enough to the 96" screen and have the comfort that NO theater can offer that it simply cant compete. I can pause rewind eat and drink anything I want and have the volume as loud or as soft as I so choose.
The home theater is the way to go and pays for its self in no time given the cost of admition, popcorn and other goodies.

[Richard W. Haines]

Thanks JDC and Bob 99.

[thxgoon]

Bob_99 wrote:

Richard,

You brought up a point that slipped my mind but there is absolutely nothing worst than paying for a movie and then having to sit through commercials.

Not to mention that the slides they used to show before the movie have started to be replaced by an LCD projector showing commercials! Argh! Now you can't even have a conversation before the movie starts.

Luckily, where I live, there is a great cineplex with a THX sound system that actually sounds great and Christie DLP projectors. The image is just awesome imo. It is also one of the older theaters so it doesn't attract the crowd that the newer one does. It's funny that people assume performance with age and actually pay more to see a movie in a lower quality venue simply because it is 'newer'. Good for me I guess!

[Richard W. Haines]

I guess these posts from different categories are starting to merge.

The reason that exhibitors show commercials on slides and video projectors prior to the film (I'm excluding trailers which were always part of moviegoing) is due to the tough booking terms imposed
on them by distributors. For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
week or so. Theater owners have no choice but to try to make money any way they can because
it isn't from the actual movie they are showing initially, thus the high priced concessions, ticket
prices and commercials.

[Bob_99]

For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
week or so

These people must have excellent contract lawyers. I know actors fought long and hard to get royalties but it would be interesting to see whose getting the most money from a movie.

Bob

[thxgoon]

Richard W. Haines wrote:

For blockbuster films distributors take 90 % of the ticket sales for the first
week or so. Theater owners have no choice but to try to make money any way they can because
it isn't from the actual movie they are showing initially, thus the high priced concessions, ticket
prices and commercials.

Thanks for all of your great insight. I always knew that theaters relied on concessions and what not to make their money, but why has it just been in the last 7 or 8 years that the commercials have begun to show up? And mostly, how do these distributors harness this power? At some point you'd think the studios and filmmakers and theater chains would say enough is enough and find a way to cut this middleman.

[tonyvdb]

I had a friend who was a manager of a fairly large theater here until thy closed it down due to low attendance and a bad location for parking as it was downtown.
He told me that even though they make some money from ticket sales the revenue from concession stand sales accounted for a huge portion of his profit. The money he pulled in after selling screen time to advertising using slides before the movie was also huge as a semi full theater holding 600 people was a great means for advertisers to get there message across to a semi captive audience. If I was an owner I would do the same even if it ticked off some of the customers waiting for a movie to start.
I work in a high rise building and they have a company installing 20" lcd displays in the elevator lobby and inside the elevator and running adds (think about it, how many times do you take an elevator if you work in a office tower) A great captive audience for at least 30 seconds.

[Richard W. Haines]

thxgoon,

There used to be a theater alliance known as NATO (not the UN organization but the National
Association of Theater Owners). They had some clout in the post 1948 era when the Supreme
Court degreed that distributors had to sell off their theater chains because it represented a monopoly.
It did although one has to admit it was a monopoly of high quality. The studios that owned theaters
really put on a great show in those days although it made independent filmmaking difficult to impossible
which was the trade offs (absolutely nothing in business or industry is clear cut/everything involves
trade offs).
Anyway, through 1966 NATO did have some influence over distribution policies since MPAA president,
Eric Johnson, was a fair minded executive willing to listen to and mediated the industry factions. However, he died in 66' and was replaced by the late Jack Valenti who was originally part of the discredited Lyndon Johnson administration. Valenti made no bones about it from day one. He was not going to represent or mediate all industry factions. He would be a lobbyist for distributors...period! Indie filmmakers, directors with controversial subjects (i.e. Pekinpah and De Palma had run ins with him), theater owners and others would be on their own since Valenti took the studio/distributor's side in virtually every dispute.
However, as long there existed 20,000 or so independent screens (prior to the late seventies),
NATO had enough support among it's members to ban 'blind bidding' on a state by state basis since
Valenti refused to ban it via distributors (blind bidding forced theaters to book movies at high rental
rates and percentages without actually screening the movie) and 'block booking' (forcing exhibitors to show a studio's entire output for the year rather than picking and choosing the titles). This gave indies
(like me) some leverage to book independent cinemas and drive ins with their product.
However, the demise of the Production Code in 1968 and replacement with the classification system
(ratings) changed the demographics of the moviegoing public from mainstream to targeted viewer which
had long term ramifications for theater owners. The large screen indoor theaters and drive ins (along
with the smaller art cinemas, repertory theaters and grind houses) began folding like dominoes in the
late seventies and eighties. They were replaced by multi and megaplexes, often controlled/owned
outright by distributors (the 1948 consent degree effectively defunct) and block booked by the major distributors cutting out indie productions, foreign and art films in general. Rather than being 20,000 or so independent cinemas organized cinemas under NATO, they became about seven or eight theater chains that controlled the distribution of studio product and were in ruthless competition to
put each other out of business. Naturally, the studio/distributors saw thier opportunity to change the
distribution terms to the 90/10 split. Prior to these years distribution terms were 60/40
with accomodations made for co-op advertising (i.e. if the theater helped pay for the ads, their percentage went up) Multi and megaplexes had no choice but to submit to these tough terms or not get any studio product. Of course, they could've turned to indie, foreign or art house product with better booking deals instead but that would further incur the wrath of studios who might now allow them to exhibit any further product.
There is the option for indie filmmakers to market directly to DVD, bypassing the studios and exhibitors although they won't get the same level of exposure. Still, there's money to be made there on direct video sales. Some like Steven Segal market directly to DVD. I'm still hanging in there and making movies but most indies I know have gotten out of the business. Very Darwinian now.

[eddthompson]

Im also going to add my thanks to Richard, this thread is a wealth of superb information about the archane workings of the the movie trade. I must find one of you movies to watch

edd

[eddthompson]

thxgoon wrote:

Thanks for all of your great insight. I always knew that theaters relied on concessions and what not to make their money, but why has it just been in the last 7 or 8 years that the commercials have begun to show up? And mostly, how do these distributors harness this power? At some point you'd think the studios and filmmakers and theater chains would say enough is enough and find a way to cut this middleman.

In the uk, im sure we have had adverts, including tv style, for a long time. The generic one is the add for the local Indian just round the corner. I used to have a dvd with 10 or so classic cinema adverts, including a 60/70s ad for clarks shoes, with twiggy no less.

edd