I’m going to throw this up for consideration because we seem to be focusing on the product as an answer to cinema-going woes. It’s something I’d posted elsewhere having to do with the question ‘Why are there so many remakes, rehashings and sequels?’
“Hollywood is a business. Show BUSINESS. It’s art, no doubt about it, but first and foremost, what you see on the screen is a commercial product. But more than that, a business like no other. The costs involved in bringing a film to the screen, from conception to development to distribution to marketing are mind-boggling. Astronomical. Depending on what source you cite, this number may be up to $100 million.
Think about it: you can put up several office buildings for this amount.
You could put your money into stocks, bonds, annuities for a more secure investment.
You could build and incorporate your own town!
Hollywood at any given time has the better part of ONE BILLION DOLLARS tied up in ‘development’. This means efforts to bring concepts, pitches and scripts to a point where they’re viable projects. The number of these projects that NEVER COME TO FRUITION would depress you. (I know it depresses me; I’m a screenwriter and so understand more intimately how the system works.)
So. Lots of money tied up, lots of money ‘wasted’, enormous risk, lots of failure…
Is it any wonder that Hollywood has a tendency to go with remakes, rehashes and ripoffs? Television tie-ins. Adaptations from the theatre? Video game, graphic novel connections?
It’s looking for ways to increase the odds of success.
(As a sidebar, the argument involving remakes of foreign films is a simple enough one to make: American audience by and large are not sufficiently interested in things-foreign. Now, before you get all red-faced and start screaming at me, a) I know there are exceptions. ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ is a recent example of how the US audience can embrace something from ‘out there’. And b) I know not everyone is myopic, that there are all kinds of people who support their local art house cinema, and that it is a generalization to say that the American audience is looking for…how shall I put it, less ‘refined faire’. But Hollywood runs its business on these generalizations. It’s how it projects its efforts. And can you blame them? When it costs as much as it does to take a stab at getting a film out there, of course they’re going to take the safe road. MOST of the time.)
And remember: where Hollywood is concerned, the only vote that matters is that of the dollar. If it sees more tickets being bought for a certain type of film, even a certain genre, then it’ll tend to put more money into making more of these films. So an effective way of ‘protesting the crap’ is going to see those movies you would prefer to be watching."
In fairness, the world has changed since the days of yore youlook back on. (And as a sidebar, most people don’t see movies in the same light as ‘us’. Just as many people are not passionate about good novels and many people (myself included, despite having a tremendous history of concert-going) are not live-music fans, many people do not consider going to the movies as ‘special’ as we here do. And that’s a very, very important point to keep in mind.) Even going back as recently as thirty years ago, movies had cachet. There simply wasn’t that much around to compete with them for the top tier of entertainment. (And when I say ‘entertainment’, I’m referring to anything that provides pleasure or distraction. Let’s not get highbrow or subjective here…) No DVDs. No Internet. (Therefore no online gambling, no porn, no blogging, no news services…) No MP3s. No video games. Go back fifty years and the movies had even more status. So we’re talking about being in love with these gorgeous churches, these cathedrals, when people have, to a large extent, moved on to home worship, or take in online broadcasts from their religious leaders, etc. (Sorry if the analogy doesn’t hold as well as I’d like.)
But Chris, you didn’t really answer your own question!
: )
You posed it, but then waxed nostalgic and bemoaned the current state of affairs. Which I believe is a very accurate summation of the status quo, and gets away from all other opinions and side-arguments: why should people continue to frequent cinemas at such high costs when they can invest in a home system that also allows them to see films they’d never see at their local nabe, palace or multiplex, as well as watching pay-per-view sports and concerts, cable, yadda, yadda, yadda, on the same system? This isn’t a battle won or lost in one fell swoop. It’s being won by degree.
Or to put it another way, for the cinema-going tradition, it’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’.
So to return to Chris' question, if you think product is so important a factor: ‘How do we get better product into the cinemas?’
Chris just because we might think its a piece of crap does not make it a movie the PUBLIC may not want to see..The scary movie films have made theaters a lot of money……like it or not…..
Translation: How do we get Hollywood to make better movies? We talk a lot at this website about classic theatres and the things that make them classic. Exhibit A: Good Movies. For every lover of Grauman’s Chinese, Cinerama Dome, Egyptian, Village, Loews State, Criterion, Esquire, and the countless other single screen palaces praised around here, each of us who love these palaces can recall the first (or 5th – maybe even 20th) film that they saw in those houses. Half of us can ever remember the smell of the popcorn, the decor of the auditorium, even the theatre logos that showed before each film. It’s the greatness of those films that have inspired our love for the theatres that showed them…and its why we miss those theatres so much when they’re gone.
We love the theatres because there was a time when Hollywood cared about the output delivered to those theatres. Now we live in an age of “McMovies” where 14 year old, MTV addicted, PlayStation worshpping, ADD afflicted kids are the guiding force behind the decisions made by the aforementioned MBA’s. The soul of cinema has been lost in a race for the #1 box office spot.
And the people have responded by staying home. Why pay $10.00 for a piece of junk like “Failure To Launch” and “Scary Movie 4” when you can wait 4 months to see it on your 50 inch TV for $3.99 at Blockbuster? If NBC can make “Must-See TV”, why can’t their (new) business partner Universal create a slate of “Must-See Movies” – movies we’re bound to incessantly talk about around the water cooler? That’s the BIG question!
P.S. I know I keep harping on “Scary Movie 4” but the thought that a single frame of that garbage was allowed to show on the Cinerama Dome screen shows that there is Something Wrong. And, in spite of how good BSNS looks, I don’t think that’s entirely Pacific/Arclight’s fault!
The problem is that the ‘crap’ sells. So they book the screens for what sells.
In a great marketplace, serving a broad range of tastes, those 32 screens would show 32 different movies. But I don’t know of that marketplace.
Although… I’m looking at the movie guide for Toronto for next week…and there’s an absolute abbondanza of titles. Maybe I’m more fortunate than I realized.
Let’s take a look at that. What we’re addressing in this thread is a cinema chain trying to get people back into the cinemas as opposed to laying down big dinare for home theatres. But do you think that the people who are cocooning at home are then buying/renting more esoteric faire? Do you think that they’re passing over the kind of films you’re proposing is the problem and going with the sort of thing that should be made? Like ‘Sideways’ or ‘Eternal Sunshine’ or ‘Kinky Boots’?
I agree that there’s a lot to be ashamed of in terms of what Hollywood offers up. But no industry keeps making what it makes unless it’s selling. So somebody’s buying it. (I’m not defending it; I’m a screenwriter and I definitely don’t write the kind of MBA-driven schlock you’re referring to. But then executives in Tinseltown aren’t paid to ‘greenlight’ projects. They’re paid to protect the studio’s money and say ‘No.’)
So I guess the question, if you believe that product is part of the problem, is ‘How do we get better product into the cinemas?’
Nobody’s really addressed the issue of “product” as of yet. The lack of product is the fault of Bluetooth wearing, BMW driving MBA’s who have managed to break into the film industry. Films nowadays are created in boardrooms rather than on a written/typed page. Everything’s about speed: how FAST can we write it, how FAST can we shoot it, how FAST can we edit it & how FAST can we get it into theatres so we can get as much money as we can before a FAST getaway. X3: The Last Stand is a prime example. They stripped away the creativity that Bryan Singer created and picked a “yes-man” (Brett Ratner) to shoot the thing on a rapid production schedule to insure it got into theatres within 18 months or so.
Hollywood has lost its ability to create using fresh and new ideas. Why else would remakes & sequels take up the majority of release schedules. You can create a theatre with a 95 foot screen and 50,000 watts of digital sound it it with a dining menu that serves Filet Mignon and Lobster Tails along with its popcorn. But if they’re showing crap like “Scary Movie 4”, “The Omen”, and “Poseidon” on screen, what’s the point of having all those bells & whistles?
So here’s an informal ‘assignment’, seeing as it’s such a pain to wait for someone else to do a poll: ask ten people why they’re regular movie-goers. Or, if they’re not, why not? Think about it: if we had a hundred people on this site take ten minutes to do this, we’d have 1000 respondents. Not scientifically certifiable, but at least an indicator of Why Things Are The Way They Are in the world of movie-going. Especially if we get answers from all over the continent.
BTW: does anyone know how the official society of cinema owners and film exhibitors feels about the state of affairs in moviedom?
So maybe it’s come full circle. People put in home theaters to re-create the feel of a movie theater. Now some movie theaters are going plush to re-create the feel of a living room.
Great list. This is exactly what I think the industry needs to do. It’s one of the reasons the Festival group in Toronto is -seemingly- going under: a lack of focus on the market and not being proactive in making the cinema a cornerstone of the community. Cinemas have to take the lead themselves.
And as for the Commodore… It’s a fantastic place. To watch a film at your table while you eat…or simply munching popcorn in the balcony…is a superb experience. These guys are a model that should be examined by many cinemas in North America. It might not work for all, but it shows creativity, it shows initiative…the very aspects your list promotes. Kudos to them. (And I hope you get a chance to take in a show there, sometime.)
Ron Newman brings up some very interesting – and dreadful – statistics. Probably his comment warrants an entire separate discussion thread. I would be kind of curious to see how this pattern manifests itself in other major cities.
From the moviegoer’s point of view, I don’t mind paying the premium and driving to Pacific’s Arclight/Dome or the Chinese, given that the picture gets my serious attention. I will get a far better presentation and service than at any of my local multiplexes. The Arclight has done, in my opinion, a fantastic job of integrating multiple screening rooms with their trademark Cinerama Dome. In addition, my experiences dealing with the Arclight’s employees have been very pleasant and have found them very courteous. There is also a very decent cafe, and their martinis are pretty good!
The Commodore Theatre concept seems to have worked for them. In some cases a smaller audience can work. You pay a bit more but are as assured as you can be of being surrounded by others who came to enjoy the movie.
Any single ,twins left must be creative which may include but not limited too.
1. midnight shows
2. free kids movies..sats and all summer long
3.after movie discussion groups
4.weekday live bands
5. bar
6.ladies night
7.mgr greeting before each show
8.how about a curtain that works
Point taken.
Check out: /theaters/1600/
And note the prices. Very reasonable. (And a terrific experience!)
But I don’t think that the average movie-goer is interested in shelling out more money. I hate to sound like a nay-sayer, but I think the perceived value of the ‘big screen experience’ has been reduced. And when something has been reduced, it’s very hard to get back the value. Which is why this ad campaign is a shot in the dark. But still admirable, if only to show that someone’s aware of the bigger picture.
I would love to see a round-table discussion with a) movie-goers, b) cinema owners and c) Hollywood represented. And talk about some of these issues.
Here are a couple of points that occurred to me after reading the previous posts:
-the irony of how avid movie-goers staying home because of a dearth of desired product will actually dilute revenues. (More of the total income from movies, regardless of source, will be from DVD sales.) So here we have people who are the bedrock of the industry (the equivalent of your local bar’s ‘regulars’) who would LOVE to see more movies…but they’re effectively being shunned because those in control don’t understand their audience.
-I don’t dispute ‘overscreening’ at all. It makes sense that it’s happened. My hometown lost two downtown single-screeners; they were replaced with a six-plex. All the other downtown cinemas have closed. They’ve been replaced by Godknowshowmany screens on the periphery of the city. So now, yes, I’d agree it’s overscreened. But this should come as no surprise to anyone; a business, any business, wants to have the lowest costs possible, hopefully resulting in the highest profits. If you’ve got eight kicks at the can instead of one, by hedging your bets, you’ve got a better chance of turning a profit.
-there’s little you can do about the product that’s being shown..other than to make sure you keep buying what you like. And you spread the word so that others go see these flicks. If something sells, studios make more like it. If it’s a niche champ, then maybe more will get made, maybe not. Again, sales rule. As far as what your local cinema shows, the owners don’t know anything other than ticket sales…unless you tell them. Teen flicks have ruled for the last thirty years, at least in the summer. Thank ‘Star Wars’ for that. This is another reason for home cinemas to be booming. You can access so much via DVD, and as DVD release dates become closer to theatrical ones, people won’t be bemoaning the lack of choice at the local cinema. (There actually is a lot of product out there for discriminating tastes, but unless you have a local nabe that is well-supported, generally these films don’t get a chance. I can think of two cinemas that are in touch with their audiences, and each community has various multiplexes as well, so it’s not like they’re anomalies: /theaters/2433/ /theaters/1762/
-As far as staff goes, I seldom come in contact with anyone in a cinema who has any sort of passion, who is excited about the fact they’re working in a business that provides people pleasure. I’m not old enough to remember the ‘good old days’, but jeez, you’d think that somebody somewhere in management would understand that they’re selling an experience to the customer. If cinema owners want people to be ‘regulars’, then they need to step back and understand their role. Blaming ‘product’ is a cop-out, an abrogation of their responsibilities. Shame on them. (Ironically, some of the best service I’ve received has been at multiplexes…the bane of many on this site…)
I was just browsing through some of the old news items on the site and came across an interesting one regarding digital cinemas. (http://cinematreasures.org/news/13413_0_1_0_C3/) Poster ‘TheaterBuff1’ sees ‘gourmet’ movie houses as an option. He may have a point. Maybe movie houses have to go upscale with higher ticket prices.
In return for shelling out more $$$ you get wide comfortable stadium-style seats, a huge digital screen, a superb sound system in a clean well-maintained theater. Maybe the theater experience needs to be made so special that it will bring the adults back to the theaters. I think many movie patrons would be willing to pay $15+ for such an experience. But the key is the experience. A ‘gourmet’ theater would be taking the gamble that a pricier ticket would keep out the cellphone users, talkers and other inconsiderate patrons. (I guess I’m asking for a lot here!)
How will Digital Cinema play into all this? Some here are upset at the demise of the film medium. But who said that film was to last forever. Movies shot digitally will be of a much higher resolution than those shot on photographic film.
Which brings up another point. Will these new digital movies look like “movies”? Or will the improved resolution, though a technological breakthrough, make movies look too much like HDTV? And is that good or bad? There is no way to really see at this point what the mass audience reaction to digital will be.
Product is another issue. So many movies are aimed at a teen audience, because they seem to be the only ones going to the movies in large numbers. Which is one reason why many adults do not go to the movies anymore. It’s a vicious cycle I guess.
It’s BOTH the overpriced & uncomfortable theatre experience ALONG WITH subpar product that’s to blame for these “woes”.
I don’t want to see CRAP at the Cinerama Dome or Grauman’s Chinese (one weekend earlier this year, the main attraction at the Dome was Scary Movie 4. WTF?!?!)! Nor do I want to see future classics in cramped shoebox auditoriums on 35-40 foot screens with top/bottom masking and surround sound that sounds like a friggin tin can!
That is exactly why I pick and choose where I see any given movie. Living in Orange County, I’ve got a tremendous amount of options. Certain movies require certain theatres. “The Break-Up” – definitely the multiplex. “Superman Returns” – definitely IMAX or Grauman’s Chinese (worth the 45 minute drive!) or Regal/Edwards Big Newport or the LARGEST AUDTIORIUM with a 60 foot (or higher) screen at a 20 screen multiplex. “Scary Movie 4” (and other CRAP like it!) – either the drive-in or one of these crappy shoeboxes.
A question for those actually in the film exhibition BSNS: Would it be too much of a task for newer theatres if they built WIDER auditoriums with screens so SMALLER than 50 feet? I’ve seen it done (Arclight Cinemas; in addition, there are a few Edwards [pre-Regal takeover] houses where all of the auditoriums are wide. I don’t think I saw a screen smaller than 50 feet). At least, no matter how crappy the movie, at least it’ll be presented in the best presentation and the biggest screens possible.
A bigger question: How hard would it be to get the teenagers who work at theatres after school committed to a theatre’s vision of having the best presentation possible (Arclight’s another example)? Or should I wait for the sky to fall and pigs to fly?
I’m going to throw this up for consideration because we seem to be focusing on the product as an answer to cinema-going woes. It’s something I’d posted elsewhere having to do with the question ‘Why are there so many remakes, rehashings and sequels?’
“Hollywood is a business. Show BUSINESS. It’s art, no doubt about it, but first and foremost, what you see on the screen is a commercial product. But more than that, a business like no other. The costs involved in bringing a film to the screen, from conception to development to distribution to marketing are mind-boggling. Astronomical. Depending on what source you cite, this number may be up to $100 million.
Think about it: you can put up several office buildings for this amount.
You could put your money into stocks, bonds, annuities for a more secure investment.
You could build and incorporate your own town!
Hollywood at any given time has the better part of ONE BILLION DOLLARS tied up in ‘development’. This means efforts to bring concepts, pitches and scripts to a point where they’re viable projects. The number of these projects that NEVER COME TO FRUITION would depress you. (I know it depresses me; I’m a screenwriter and so understand more intimately how the system works.)
So. Lots of money tied up, lots of money ‘wasted’, enormous risk, lots of failure…
Is it any wonder that Hollywood has a tendency to go with remakes, rehashes and ripoffs? Television tie-ins. Adaptations from the theatre? Video game, graphic novel connections?
It’s looking for ways to increase the odds of success.
(As a sidebar, the argument involving remakes of foreign films is a simple enough one to make: American audience by and large are not sufficiently interested in things-foreign. Now, before you get all red-faced and start screaming at me, a) I know there are exceptions. ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ is a recent example of how the US audience can embrace something from ‘out there’. And b) I know not everyone is myopic, that there are all kinds of people who support their local art house cinema, and that it is a generalization to say that the American audience is looking for…how shall I put it, less ‘refined faire’. But Hollywood runs its business on these generalizations. It’s how it projects its efforts. And can you blame them? When it costs as much as it does to take a stab at getting a film out there, of course they’re going to take the safe road. MOST of the time.)
Hence all the tv show remakes.
And the sequels.
And the adaptations from foreign originals.
Any chance of increasing the odds, of tapping into a built-in audience, Hollywood will go there. Trying new and dangerous and challenging things is not their forté.
And remember: where Hollywood is concerned, the only vote that matters is that of the dollar. If it sees more tickets being bought for a certain type of film, even a certain genre, then it’ll tend to put more money into making more of these films. So an effective way of ‘protesting the crap’ is going to see those movies you would prefer to be watching."
In fairness, the world has changed since the days of yore youlook back on. (And as a sidebar, most people don’t see movies in the same light as ‘us’. Just as many people are not passionate about good novels and many people (myself included, despite having a tremendous history of concert-going) are not live-music fans, many people do not consider going to the movies as ‘special’ as we here do. And that’s a very, very important point to keep in mind.) Even going back as recently as thirty years ago, movies had cachet. There simply wasn’t that much around to compete with them for the top tier of entertainment. (And when I say ‘entertainment’, I’m referring to anything that provides pleasure or distraction. Let’s not get highbrow or subjective here…) No DVDs. No Internet. (Therefore no online gambling, no porn, no blogging, no news services…) No MP3s. No video games. Go back fifty years and the movies had even more status. So we’re talking about being in love with these gorgeous churches, these cathedrals, when people have, to a large extent, moved on to home worship, or take in online broadcasts from their religious leaders, etc. (Sorry if the analogy doesn’t hold as well as I’d like.)
But Chris, you didn’t really answer your own question!
: )
You posed it, but then waxed nostalgic and bemoaned the current state of affairs. Which I believe is a very accurate summation of the status quo, and gets away from all other opinions and side-arguments: why should people continue to frequent cinemas at such high costs when they can invest in a home system that also allows them to see films they’d never see at their local nabe, palace or multiplex, as well as watching pay-per-view sports and concerts, cable, yadda, yadda, yadda, on the same system? This isn’t a battle won or lost in one fell swoop. It’s being won by degree.
Or to put it another way, for the cinema-going tradition, it’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’.
So to return to Chris' question, if you think product is so important a factor: ‘How do we get better product into the cinemas?’
Chris just because we might think its a piece of crap does not make it a movie the PUBLIC may not want to see..The scary movie films have made theaters a lot of money……like it or not…..
“How do we get better product into the cinemas”?
Translation: How do we get Hollywood to make better movies? We talk a lot at this website about classic theatres and the things that make them classic. Exhibit A: Good Movies. For every lover of Grauman’s Chinese, Cinerama Dome, Egyptian, Village, Loews State, Criterion, Esquire, and the countless other single screen palaces praised around here, each of us who love these palaces can recall the first (or 5th – maybe even 20th) film that they saw in those houses. Half of us can ever remember the smell of the popcorn, the decor of the auditorium, even the theatre logos that showed before each film. It’s the greatness of those films that have inspired our love for the theatres that showed them…and its why we miss those theatres so much when they’re gone.
We love the theatres because there was a time when Hollywood cared about the output delivered to those theatres. Now we live in an age of “McMovies” where 14 year old, MTV addicted, PlayStation worshpping, ADD afflicted kids are the guiding force behind the decisions made by the aforementioned MBA’s. The soul of cinema has been lost in a race for the #1 box office spot.
And the people have responded by staying home. Why pay $10.00 for a piece of junk like “Failure To Launch” and “Scary Movie 4” when you can wait 4 months to see it on your 50 inch TV for $3.99 at Blockbuster? If NBC can make “Must-See TV”, why can’t their (new) business partner Universal create a slate of “Must-See Movies” – movies we’re bound to incessantly talk about around the water cooler? That’s the BIG question!
P.S. I know I keep harping on “Scary Movie 4” but the thought that a single frame of that garbage was allowed to show on the Cinerama Dome screen shows that there is Something Wrong. And, in spite of how good BSNS looks, I don’t think that’s entirely Pacific/Arclight’s fault!
Ron:
The problem is that the ‘crap’ sells. So they book the screens for what sells.
In a great marketplace, serving a broad range of tastes, those 32 screens would show 32 different movies. But I don’t know of that marketplace.
Although… I’m looking at the movie guide for Toronto for next week…and there’s an absolute abbondanza of titles. Maybe I’m more fortunate than I realized.
Mmm…
Let’s take a look at that. What we’re addressing in this thread is a cinema chain trying to get people back into the cinemas as opposed to laying down big dinare for home theatres. But do you think that the people who are cocooning at home are then buying/renting more esoteric faire? Do you think that they’re passing over the kind of films you’re proposing is the problem and going with the sort of thing that should be made? Like ‘Sideways’ or ‘Eternal Sunshine’ or ‘Kinky Boots’?
I agree that there’s a lot to be ashamed of in terms of what Hollywood offers up. But no industry keeps making what it makes unless it’s selling. So somebody’s buying it. (I’m not defending it; I’m a screenwriter and I definitely don’t write the kind of MBA-driven schlock you’re referring to. But then executives in Tinseltown aren’t paid to ‘greenlight’ projects. They’re paid to protect the studio’s money and say ‘No.’)
So I guess the question, if you believe that product is part of the problem, is ‘How do we get better product into the cinemas?’
So if the Hollywood product is crap, why not devote those screens to other stuff — independent films, foreign films, and revivals?
32 screens should show 32 different movies.
Nobody’s really addressed the issue of “product” as of yet. The lack of product is the fault of Bluetooth wearing, BMW driving MBA’s who have managed to break into the film industry. Films nowadays are created in boardrooms rather than on a written/typed page. Everything’s about speed: how FAST can we write it, how FAST can we shoot it, how FAST can we edit it & how FAST can we get it into theatres so we can get as much money as we can before a FAST getaway. X3: The Last Stand is a prime example. They stripped away the creativity that Bryan Singer created and picked a “yes-man” (Brett Ratner) to shoot the thing on a rapid production schedule to insure it got into theatres within 18 months or so.
Hollywood has lost its ability to create using fresh and new ideas. Why else would remakes & sequels take up the majority of release schedules. You can create a theatre with a 95 foot screen and 50,000 watts of digital sound it it with a dining menu that serves Filet Mignon and Lobster Tails along with its popcorn. But if they’re showing crap like “Scary Movie 4”, “The Omen”, and “Poseidon” on screen, what’s the point of having all those bells & whistles?
So here’s an informal ‘assignment’, seeing as it’s such a pain to wait for someone else to do a poll: ask ten people why they’re regular movie-goers. Or, if they’re not, why not? Think about it: if we had a hundred people on this site take ten minutes to do this, we’d have 1000 respondents. Not scientifically certifiable, but at least an indicator of Why Things Are The Way They Are in the world of movie-going. Especially if we get answers from all over the continent.
BTW: does anyone know how the official society of cinema owners and film exhibitors feels about the state of affairs in moviedom?
lol good point…
So maybe it’s come full circle. People put in home theaters to re-create the feel of a movie theater. Now some movie theaters are going plush to re-create the feel of a living room.
longislandfilms:
Great list. This is exactly what I think the industry needs to do. It’s one of the reasons the Festival group in Toronto is -seemingly- going under: a lack of focus on the market and not being proactive in making the cinema a cornerstone of the community. Cinemas have to take the lead themselves.
And as for the Commodore… It’s a fantastic place. To watch a film at your table while you eat…or simply munching popcorn in the balcony…is a superb experience. These guys are a model that should be examined by many cinemas in North America. It might not work for all, but it shows creativity, it shows initiative…the very aspects your list promotes. Kudos to them. (And I hope you get a chance to take in a show there, sometime.)
wow….thats a theater
Commodore Theater – /theaters/1600/ – An upscale movie presentation.
Ron Newman brings up some very interesting – and dreadful – statistics. Probably his comment warrants an entire separate discussion thread. I would be kind of curious to see how this pattern manifests itself in other major cities.
From the moviegoer’s point of view, I don’t mind paying the premium and driving to Pacific’s Arclight/Dome or the Chinese, given that the picture gets my serious attention. I will get a far better presentation and service than at any of my local multiplexes. The Arclight has done, in my opinion, a fantastic job of integrating multiple screening rooms with their trademark Cinerama Dome. In addition, my experiences dealing with the Arclight’s employees have been very pleasant and have found them very courteous. There is also a very decent cafe, and their martinis are pretty good!
Good presentation, good screen, sound system, showmanship, service, facilities (i.e. café, bar, etc.) and yes, a curtain that works, need not be exclusive domain of a “luxury†or high-end theater/multiplex. These features come at a cost for sure, but they are necessary to make the theater-going experience worth the admission price for the audience, and eventually bring in business.
JSA
dfc – what is there concept?
The Commodore Theatre concept seems to have worked for them. In some cases a smaller audience can work. You pay a bit more but are as assured as you can be of being surrounded by others who came to enjoy the movie.
Any single ,twins left must be creative which may include but not limited too.
1. midnight shows
2. free kids movies..sats and all summer long
3.after movie discussion groups
4.weekday live bands
5. bar
6.ladies night
7.mgr greeting before each show
8.how about a curtain that works
DFC:
Point taken.
Check out: /theaters/1600/
And note the prices. Very reasonable. (And a terrific experience!)
But I don’t think that the average movie-goer is interested in shelling out more money. I hate to sound like a nay-sayer, but I think the perceived value of the ‘big screen experience’ has been reduced. And when something has been reduced, it’s very hard to get back the value. Which is why this ad campaign is a shot in the dark. But still admirable, if only to show that someone’s aware of the bigger picture.
I would love to see a round-table discussion with a) movie-goers, b) cinema owners and c) Hollywood represented. And talk about some of these issues.
Here are a couple of points that occurred to me after reading the previous posts:
-the irony of how avid movie-goers staying home because of a dearth of desired product will actually dilute revenues. (More of the total income from movies, regardless of source, will be from DVD sales.) So here we have people who are the bedrock of the industry (the equivalent of your local bar’s ‘regulars’) who would LOVE to see more movies…but they’re effectively being shunned because those in control don’t understand their audience.
-I don’t dispute ‘overscreening’ at all. It makes sense that it’s happened. My hometown lost two downtown single-screeners; they were replaced with a six-plex. All the other downtown cinemas have closed. They’ve been replaced by Godknowshowmany screens on the periphery of the city. So now, yes, I’d agree it’s overscreened. But this should come as no surprise to anyone; a business, any business, wants to have the lowest costs possible, hopefully resulting in the highest profits. If you’ve got eight kicks at the can instead of one, by hedging your bets, you’ve got a better chance of turning a profit.
-there’s little you can do about the product that’s being shown..other than to make sure you keep buying what you like. And you spread the word so that others go see these flicks. If something sells, studios make more like it. If it’s a niche champ, then maybe more will get made, maybe not. Again, sales rule. As far as what your local cinema shows, the owners don’t know anything other than ticket sales…unless you tell them. Teen flicks have ruled for the last thirty years, at least in the summer. Thank ‘Star Wars’ for that. This is another reason for home cinemas to be booming. You can access so much via DVD, and as DVD release dates become closer to theatrical ones, people won’t be bemoaning the lack of choice at the local cinema. (There actually is a lot of product out there for discriminating tastes, but unless you have a local nabe that is well-supported, generally these films don’t get a chance. I can think of two cinemas that are in touch with their audiences, and each community has various multiplexes as well, so it’s not like they’re anomalies:
/theaters/2433/
/theaters/1762/
-As far as staff goes, I seldom come in contact with anyone in a cinema who has any sort of passion, who is excited about the fact they’re working in a business that provides people pleasure. I’m not old enough to remember the ‘good old days’, but jeez, you’d think that somebody somewhere in management would understand that they’re selling an experience to the customer. If cinema owners want people to be ‘regulars’, then they need to step back and understand their role. Blaming ‘product’ is a cop-out, an abrogation of their responsibilities. Shame on them. (Ironically, some of the best service I’ve received has been at multiplexes…the bane of many on this site…)
I was just browsing through some of the old news items on the site and came across an interesting one regarding digital cinemas. (http://cinematreasures.org/news/13413_0_1_0_C3/) Poster ‘TheaterBuff1’ sees ‘gourmet’ movie houses as an option. He may have a point. Maybe movie houses have to go upscale with higher ticket prices.
In return for shelling out more $$$ you get wide comfortable stadium-style seats, a huge digital screen, a superb sound system in a clean well-maintained theater. Maybe the theater experience needs to be made so special that it will bring the adults back to the theaters. I think many movie patrons would be willing to pay $15+ for such an experience. But the key is the experience. A ‘gourmet’ theater would be taking the gamble that a pricier ticket would keep out the cellphone users, talkers and other inconsiderate patrons. (I guess I’m asking for a lot here!)
And the kids buy the candy…………………
How will Digital Cinema play into all this? Some here are upset at the demise of the film medium. But who said that film was to last forever. Movies shot digitally will be of a much higher resolution than those shot on photographic film.
Which brings up another point. Will these new digital movies look like “movies”? Or will the improved resolution, though a technological breakthrough, make movies look too much like HDTV? And is that good or bad? There is no way to really see at this point what the mass audience reaction to digital will be.
Product is another issue. So many movies are aimed at a teen audience, because they seem to be the only ones going to the movies in large numbers. Which is one reason why many adults do not go to the movies anymore. It’s a vicious cycle I guess.
Both LongIsland & Schmadrian are correct.
It’s BOTH the overpriced & uncomfortable theatre experience ALONG WITH subpar product that’s to blame for these “woes”.
I don’t want to see CRAP at the Cinerama Dome or Grauman’s Chinese (one weekend earlier this year, the main attraction at the Dome was Scary Movie 4. WTF?!?!)! Nor do I want to see future classics in cramped shoebox auditoriums on 35-40 foot screens with top/bottom masking and surround sound that sounds like a friggin tin can!
That is exactly why I pick and choose where I see any given movie. Living in Orange County, I’ve got a tremendous amount of options. Certain movies require certain theatres. “The Break-Up” – definitely the multiplex. “Superman Returns” – definitely IMAX or Grauman’s Chinese (worth the 45 minute drive!) or Regal/Edwards Big Newport or the LARGEST AUDTIORIUM with a 60 foot (or higher) screen at a 20 screen multiplex. “Scary Movie 4” (and other CRAP like it!) – either the drive-in or one of these crappy shoeboxes.
A question for those actually in the film exhibition BSNS: Would it be too much of a task for newer theatres if they built WIDER auditoriums with screens so SMALLER than 50 feet? I’ve seen it done (Arclight Cinemas; in addition, there are a few Edwards [pre-Regal takeover] houses where all of the auditoriums are wide. I don’t think I saw a screen smaller than 50 feet). At least, no matter how crappy the movie, at least it’ll be presented in the best presentation and the biggest screens possible.
A bigger question: How hard would it be to get the teenagers who work at theatres after school committed to a theatre’s vision of having the best presentation possible (Arclight’s another example)? Or should I wait for the sky to fall and pigs to fly?
There is a great section in “CINEMA TREASURES "hard cover book on overscreening pages 182, 183,184….