Iger makes a death threat?

[€uroMeinke]

I've been carrying about 20 AMC theater passes for about a year now - hoping that they might get me into a theater more often. Unfortunately, I even seem to have difficulty even seeing DVDs though we have been knocking a few of those off the list. It seems I need an event to see a movie, a cemetary screening, an all night DVD extravaganza, etc. on my own, I just seem to get sucked into the internet.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I think the main problem is the Studio's refuse to invest in theatres. The movie theatre is barely covering the expence of employees, maintainance and the such. If the Studio's would give more of the ticket price to the theatres, they wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the bucket. For one screen to sell $1000 worth of seats, the theatre only get's 10%. That's barely an employee salary for the day.

I think if anything, the studio's need to fork over some $$. I think place like the Archlight and El Cap and the quality in presentation can be presented anywhere. But, I will tell you that in the next 10 years, the technology is going to catch up and we'll see tons of theatres close and the loss of the use of film. Digital projection is coming and I think that will change everything.

[Boss Angeles]

If the theater owners had lunch every day at their own snack bars they'd be either dead or broke. I want to go to the outlet theater..

[wendybeth]

I wonder which would happen first? Death by faux-food, or bankruptcy?

[Boss Angeles]

If Valiant is any indication, Iger is proving the bad product scenario all by himself.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Originally Posted by Boss Angeles

If the theater owners had lunch every day at their own snack bars they'd be either dead or broke. I want to go to the outlet theater..

True, but if the Studio's would've givin the owners more of the profits, it wouldn't cost as much in the first place. On the average, people who go see movies only spend about $1-2 per person. Some buy alot, some don't, but in the average, the theatre has to have about a $2-3 per capita. (Average sale per person)

Would you like some Road Oil with that?

[Boingonut]

Originally Posted by Bornieo: Fully Loaded

Digital projection is coming and I think that will change everything.

How so? I got to see the really good Texas Instruments digital projection at the Arclight when the new Star Wars movie came out. As a film purest I went in wanting to HATE it, but I had to admit it looked pretty darn good (although the HD camera work made me feel like I was watching a home movie and not a huge budget blockbuster). I would say the projection was about 90% of what a good new 35mm print looks like. I also had to admit that if they can standardize the technology and format, i.e. stop coming out with the biggest best thing every 6 months and pick an international video signal (hopfully PAL), bring down the cost ($100,000 is wayyyyyy to much for a projector) and simpify the operation of the unit (right now only highly trained specialists can run the things) then theater owners will embrace digital projection. Also the studios need to help with the cost of installation. As it is now I don't see a change as soon as some people think, unless George Lucas is willing to put his money where his mouth is . It would mean a compleate overhoul of the way movies are made which is something most studios are not yet ready to do. We are still very much in a reserch stage when it comes to the so-called digital revelotion, and have been in that stage for 20 years. Filmmakers are always hearing the cry that film is dead, but I don't think it is, at least not in the way most people think it will die.

You also have to remember that most cinematographers still prefer to shoot in film. Now that the HD craze has settled down HD camera rental is at an all time low while 35mm and even 16mm camera rental has been going way up. Both Kodak and Fuji have come out with the first new low grain fast (about 500t) 35mm film stocks in years, Panavision is updateing its 35mm cameras, and is rumored to be working on a whole new line of 16mm and 35mm cameras. Arriflex created the first truley small 35mm camera that is no bigger then an XL-2. So even if digital projection won you would still be watching film transfer to video. I myself have given up on finishing most of my films in film. As it stands now it costs $60,000 to shoot a feature and finish on film. That can be cut in half if finshed on video which is a very good thing for indie filmmakers! Although when I send something in to the the film festival scene I would make a short subject experimental narrative and finish on film so that it could be shown internationaly. Plus when you finish in film people take you a lot more seriously.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

OH, don't get me wrong, I love film. I've done projection for 17 years now, but I think cheep is the way and I think digital will be it. There's nothing like a beautiful projected film on a big screen.

I would love to see the Studio's run the theatres again. I think that would solve alot. I think the fact that the whole "conflict of interest" is a bunch of crap. Paramount and Warner Bros. already own Mann Theatres indirectly.

[Boingonut]

Cool, film projection rules if it is a good print, but digital is getting there, still not quite but getting there. (BTW I am by no means defending digital projection, I would like to see it die die die, but I know that it is on its way so I might as well find good things about it if it is going to be the way my films in the future are going to be shown. Although you can pry my motion picture film camera from my cold dead hands, I'll stop making movies when camera film stock is gone...

Anyway like I said there are some people really pushing for digital projection (mainly George Lucas and James Cameron) and I say that if they want it so bad they sould help pay for it, I am sure they have plenty of money to spare. I agree to that if the studios owned the theaters it would solve a lot of problems.