box office slump Tagged Articles at Cinematical
Digital Projection: Pros and Cons
Filed under: Universal », Tech Stuff », Exhibition »
After reporting last week about plans to soon equip one-third of American cinemas with digital projectors, I received a few comments telling of disappointing encounters with the new format. It got me wanting to do some more research on the technology and the experience, and hopefully soon take in a digital showing somewhere. I haven't yet become an expert on the subject, but I did come across an interesting set of articles in Sunday's Ventura County Star, both written by Allison Bruce, which give the pros and the cons of both digital and film projectors. Aside from the obvious factors that make digital attractive -- clearer picture, cheaper distribution -- Bruce includes an amusing comment from director Barry Sonnenfeld in which he says studios could easily change a movie that has been badly received by critics or audiences, after it has opened in theaters. He cites King Kong as a good example of a movie that would have benefited had Universal been able to cut out 40 minutes of the film after hearing that viewers complained of it being too long. I highly doubt that any studios would actually take advantage of this, though. After all, isn't that why they have test screenings?
One thing I think that hurts digital, evident from Bruce's article supporting digital, is that most of the format's pros are beneficial to studios and theaters more than to audiences. The cheaper distribution, the ease of projector use, the issues with piracy and the scheduling ideas for exhibitors are all meant to save the businesses money. But will it trickle down the savings to the consumer? No way. In fact, I see digital being used as an excuse to raise prices for the ticket buyers. Consider that the big theater chains are about to borrow a collective billion dollars. It is obvious that we, the audience, will be depended upon to pay those loans back.
Slump say what? Variety in 60 Seconds
Filed under: Sony », Warner Brothers », Box Office », Exhibition », 20th Century Fox », Home Entertainment »
In a figure that at first glance
seems wildly inflated compared to other reports that are circulating, Ben Fritz writes that, accounting for
higher ticket prices, the year-end box office tally will actually be a whopping 11% down from 2004. Still, it was
hardly an industry-wide slump; Warners and Fox did solid business all year long, and along with third-place ranked
Sony, they'll be taking home about half of the year's total receipts. - Not that anyone should be crying: it would seem that most of the cash lost in the exhibition realm was made back in home entertainment, where spending on DVDs is up 10%.
- There's been a huge influx of new titles over the past ten days, but most, like Match Point and The New World, are still in limited release. That leaves the last box office frame of the year as one more fight between The Big Fake Gorilla and the Magical Closet.
AFI lists "significant moments"
Filed under: Awards », MGM », Newsstand », Dreamworks », Lists »
If
there anyone on earth who likes lists more than we do,
it's the American Film Institute. Best songs, thrills, quotes - they compile them all, and on national TV, no
less! While their latest offering is unlikely to be the subject of a television special, it nevertheless is a bit more
relevant today than, say, a list of passions.Announced yesterday, the list compiles the six "issues or events" that the AFI feels had the "greatest impact on the world of the moving image" in the past year. While most of the six are fairly obvious, together they provide a resolution of the place and role of the medium in 2005 that is both interesting and fairly accurate. The list - which is certainly worth a look - includes such touchstones as the increasing consolidation of media (specifically the sale of both MGM and Dreamworks), the undeniable and much-discussed box office slump, and the emergence of TV (and movie) content for things like cell phones and video iPods.
Oddly, the "creative ensembles" behind each of the six will be honored at an event next month. I wonder who they'll recognize as being responsible for the box office troubles.
The people want 3-D
Filed under: Classics », Box Office », Fandom », Tech Stuff », Newsstand »
Various slumpmongers have blamed
Hollywood's obsession with new technology for declining ticket sales. So is the answer to turn towards old technology?
The Opinion Dynamics Corporation has just released a new study which indicates that 26 million Americans (12 percent of
adults) would go to the movies more frequently if more films were shot in 3D. The fact that such a survey even happened
is baffling; 3D has't been considered a serious option for the film industry since the mid-50s, when studios pulled out
all the stops to lure moviegoers away from their newfangled televisions. The ODC's spokesman stands by the findings of
his firm:"Given that there were only two feature-length 3D films released in 2005, there appears to be pent-up
demand for 3D films, especially when feature- length, live-action 3D films come to marke," says Richard Greif.
Will the major studios take these findings and immediately expand their 3D production units? And can the resurgence of
Smellovision be far behind?Kong gone wrong: Weekend Box Office
Filed under: Box Office », Peter Jackson », Remakes and Sequels »
Place your bets, kiddies – somebody at
Universal is about to get pink slipped. The studio's King Kong made just $66.2 million from Wednesday through
Sunday – a huge disappointment when you consider that The Chronicles of Narnia made about a million
dollars more in only three days last week. Universal, of course, is already running all kinds of spin on this. But-but-but it's three hours long, which means it can't book as many showtimes! (Didn't someone think of that before the thing opened?) But-but-but everyone is too busy Christmas shopping to go to the movies! But-but-but Titanic started slow, too! But-but-but grosses increased 40% from Friday to Saturday! (Well, yeah, but so did Aeon Flux.) But-but-but Kong doesn't have the built-in audience of Lord of the Rings! (Well, yeah, but it also doesn't specifically exclude those of us who chiefly associate "hobbits" with "those guys who never move out of their mother's basement".) But the best quote in the Reuters writeup comes from Box Office Mojo's Brandon Gray. Kong was " realistically, a tough sell," Gray says, because "it's incredibly tricky to get audiences excited about a movie that doesn't have a strong human character." Zing!
It takes only a glance at the rest of the Top Ten to see that Universal's claim that we were all too busy scooping up presents to hit the cinemas is all wrong. Narnia, for instance, held on steady, coming in at number 2 with $31.7 million, and Fox's The Family Stone slightly outdid expectations, earning $12.7 million and landing in third place. So what went wrong here? And will Kong come back from behind to, at the very least, pay off the Big Fake Gorilla's outstanding debts? Full top ten after the jump, and for more detailed figures, try this.
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
