Officially, the season of summer doesn't begin for another two weeks, but for the movie business, summer 2008 started back on May 2, with the release of Iron Man. Though it seemed like an early enough start, some exhibitors would like it to begin even earlier, like in April. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, John Fithian, who heads the National Association of Theatre Owners (the largest trade group for cinema operators), and Mike Campbell (no relation), who runs Regal Entertainment (the largest cinema chain in the U.S.), discuss the benefits of having tentpole (aka blockbuster) movies released all year long rather than in just the summer and winter holiday seasons and ask that Hollywood at least consider bumping up some major releases to April rather than the busy month of May.

The argument for limiting tentpoles to the summer has always been that it's a time when kids are out from school. But as Fithian points out, most kids are still in school through May, when the biggest blockbusters are released. And movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still made a lot of money anyway. In fact, aside from whatever tentpole is scheduled for July 4th weekend, the movies released in May are often the biggest moneymakers of the year. At least for Hollywood. But according to Fithian, theater owners actually lost a lot of money in May because of how many tentpoles are released so closely together. Campbell adds that overall box office gross would be up significantly if major releases were more evenly spread out. Certainly moviegoers would appreciate having more blockbusters and/or better movies released in months like January and September, as well as other months often considered "dumping grounds" for movies that shouldn't have even been made.

There's currently a crisis in the theater industry and apparently it's all Steven Spielberg's fault. According to Variety coverage of Sunday's National Association of Broadcasters Show's Digitial Cinema Summit, the filmmaker was named as a constant obstacle in the transition to digital cinema.

Spielberg's insistence against releasing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally was overruled last month when Paramount announced that it would indeed open the summer blockbuster on some digital screens, but the fact that it won't be a full digital release, coupled with the fact that Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film, is a problematic issue for an industry having difficulties installing a necessary amount of digital projectors by 2009.

To quote an official MPAA movie ratings poster: "THE SYSTEM CAN'T WORK UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM."

How many NC-17-rated films did you see in the theater in the past year? Maybe one? That is if Ang Lee's Lust, Caution even played in your 'hood. And considering the most screens it ever played on in any single week was 143, I highly doubt it (understandably, it could have played in more than 143 locations over the course of its 20 weeks in theaters, but I doubt many more).

But if there had been more NC-17-rated films, and they actually played near you, would you have gone to see them? And if so, why? Because you expect something more titillating than the other releases to choose from? And if not, why? Are you afraid of others thinking you are going to see something dirty? Are you embarrassed about both attending and watching graphic sex on screen? Do you correlate the experience to going to a porno theater?

MPAA leader Dan Glickman had a lot more to say about the ratings system this week during the ShoWest film exhibition and distribution convention. As you remember, the MPAA unveiled revisions to its system earlier this year, and since then it has had to continually explain, clarify, defend and fine tune its changes due to confusion and dissatisfaction. One thing that continues to be unclear, though, is if the MPAA is more interested in removing the stigma of the NC-17 rating or in altering the perception that an R-rated film is perfectly suitable for all ages. On Thursday the Classification and Ratings Administration, which operates the ratings system for the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), revealed a new advisory for the R rating that it hopes will be a better warning to parents. It will read: "Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures."

Additionally, some theater chains are looking to go further and ban very young children from R-rated movies, a practice already observed by many art house cinemas. NATO head John Fithian also spoke about the ratings system at ShoWest, and it is apparent that theater owners have their own ideas regarding the subject. First he stressed the importance of having theatrical releases rated by the MPAA in order to perform well. Even though the NC-17 rating has a stigma attached, movies released with that rating earn more money than those released without a rating. He also claimed that without the ratings system we'd possibly have to deal instead with a government-run system of censorship.

Finally he made a request for Hollywood to stop releasing special unrated editions of DVDs -- or at least stop marketing them as being better because they are uncensored. He said that this practice undermines the authority and purpose of the ratings, plus it emphasizes the idea that for some movies it is better to avoid the theater and to wait for the more complete DVD. I guess we'll have to see if the studios abide by this request, but just be warned there may only be one version of Knocked Up, so you might as well just go see it in the theater. Grindhouse, on the other hand, will probably need an unrated DVD no matter what.

After months and months of buildup to its multi-platform release, Steven Soderbergh's Bubble opened in 32 theaters. And, on that all-important, buzz-filled first weekend, it made just $70,664. Ouch. Though of course Mark Cuban, whose 2929 Entertainment is behind the DVD/HD/theater release technique, tried to convince anyone who would listen that the low returns were of little consequence, theater owners clearly felt otherwise. In fact, they were so sure that the $70,664 spelled disaster for the entire simultaneous release concept that they actually released a public statement, crowing over the movie's failure. Yeah, that's classy. John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, just wanted to make sure everyone knew that "the movie has performed very poorly," even with all of the free publicity granted it by the press. In other words, "Suck it, Cuban!"