national association of theatre owners Tagged Articles at Cinematical

The most we can hope for now is the unrated director's cut of Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno, because the filmmaker has won his appeal with the MPAA and received an R rating, according to the Associated Press. It's been a long road for Smith's movie, which was unsurprisingly smacked with an NC-17 last month -- as if we didn't see it coming due to Smith's track record and the fact that it's a movie about a couple who, yes, that's right, make a porno. Oh, and of course there was that raunchy trailer, which gave us some semblance of the material the movie is dealing with (coprophilia jokes are likely always deemed adults-only content, at least in the initial ratings board screening).

So much for the MPAA and National Association of Theatre Owners' plans to remove the stigma attached to the NC-17. If ever there was a popular filmmaker to usher in a new wave of non-porn adults-only fare, Smith would be that person. And considering that Zack and Miri is about porn, it would be an appropriate gateway for the rating. Last week, when Smith spoke to AICN about the appeal, he seemed fine with the need for an R rating, stating that it's just "part of the process." Of course it is. The process consists of toning down a film to ensure an R and then releasing the original raunchier version on DVD in order for Hollywood to get the most buck for its bang.

Update: When Cinematical reached Smith for a quote, he had this to say on the decision: "I'm very happy with the result of the appeals process. Sadly, however, it doesn't cure my biggest headache: I'm still grossly overweight."

Now that the weekend is nearly over, and you all have seen The Dark Knight multiple times, let me ask you a question: did you sneak your own snacks into the theater? Be honest. I won't get angry. I'll just let out a huge sigh.

Yes, it's time once again to ask the question, only five months after Kim asked it the last time. But it's an issue that I must continue discussing (at least once each busy movie season), because I see it as one of the worst cyclical problems affecting the exhibition industry. Of course, if you commonly do it, you'll no more listen to me now than you've listened in the past. The other day, a very good friend let the world know (via her Facebook status) that she was sneaking snacks into a movie. If I can't get through to those close to me, what's the chance I'll get through to you?

As usual, I'm not going to pretend to understand the technologies behind modern home entertainment. And so, before I begin, I'd like to prematurely thank any commenters who choose to weigh in on things such as "selectable output control," "the analog hole" or any other terms I might misuse or incorrectly explain. The only thing I comprehend about those electronic doohickeys in my living room is that they each somehow connect to my antiquated analog television and through the magic of, well, I don't know, I'm able to watch the occasional classic movie and mindless cake design program.

Those familiar with this column should know that I'm not here to necessarily explain how threats to movie theaters work. I'm just here to yell, "the sky is falling!" from within the lobby of the local cinema and hope that you Henny Pennys and Goosey Looseys are listening to my rants and ramblings and at least try to go to the movies more often (and hopefully buy at least one thing at the concession stand). This time, however, I feel even less knowledgeable about the latest threat, and I feel even more fearful that this is the beginning of the end. The cinemapocalypse, if you will.

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.

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.

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.

Like most movie bloggers, I read the trade magazines. But I don't just read the obvious ones, like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I also read related trades, such as Professional Candy Buyer and In Focus. The latter of these was the official magazine for the National Association of Theatre Owners, but its final issue has just hit the streets (er, cinemas). I haven't actually read the print version since leaving my former job as a theater manager, but I've kept up with NATO and the industry via the magazine's website.

With the end of In Focus, NATO will not be without a trade. It has chosen Box Office magazine, which has been around since 1920, to be its official publication. I've never been a big fan of the B.O.M. site, mainly because I was never familiar with the print version, but the site does have more in the way of content, like reviews and blogs, than the In Focus site. I guess I'll have to get used to it, as it will now be my main source for theater industry news and info.

I'm not sure how many of our readers are that interested in multiplex innovation and concession trends, so I rarely blog about the things I learn from In Focus, but I thought I'd share some of the last stories the trade has featured in its pages ...

This week Reuters has been holding a media summit in New York City, and many entertainment industry executives have not only been participating, they've been delivering some enjoyable quotes. Of particular interest to Cinematical are the statements from Regal Entertainment CEO Michael Campbell and Blockbuster CEO John Antioco. Campbell discussed the ever-threatening release window shrinkage, which he says he will continue to battle with strong measures. He claims that studios are okay to move up DVD releases for films that don't perform well at the box office, but he stands firm against even small distributors who wish to put out DVDs within eight weeks of their theatrical release. He won't give a minimum for acceptance regarding the window's time-frame, but he urges the film industry to recognize the importance of theatrical exhibition to the success of their product. Campbell also used the summit to announce that Regal has had success with their Guest Response System pagers, which are providing a solution to all the "physical battles" involving assaults with "bats, knives and guns" against cellphone users, and hopes to have them in theaters nationwide next year.

As far as the video rental business goes, Antioco said that it is a business that has reached a plateau, but is still the preferred way for consumers to see films. He is also quoted as saying that, "packaged media remains king for a long time." He claims that Blockbuster is not interested in fighting the digital alternatives (such as movie downloading), and says that it is a business they will need to be in, "for competitive reasons and for consumer reasons, to have a full-service brand." His company hasn't decided on a format for their planned download service, which might be provided through cable or satellite TV rather than computers, and they aren't ruling out any possibilities. On the subject of Blockbuster's rivalry with Netflix and the battle for the online rental market, Antioco says that, "if (Netflix CEO) Reed Hastings thinks he is going to be alone in it, I don't think he is correct."

In case you aren't aware, the American film ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) are a voluntary system by and for parents. Not only do they tell people what is and what isn't appropriate for their children, depending on their age, they also give basic details of what type of content has influenced each film's given rating. Information on a movie's rating can be found in its advertisements, most film reviews and a special search-engine-powered website (www.filmratings.com). What more could a responsible parent or guardian ask for? How about MPAA Dan Glickman comes over your house and describes each new release and its assigned rating ... every week?

Unfortunately the man is just too busy saving the world from pirates of Pirates to do that, but he's going to do the next best thing: send you an email. Parents (and non-parents, I'm assuming) can subscribe to the new "Red Carpet Ratings" service, which sends out one email each week giving a rundown of what is coming out. The service is designed to keep (lazy) parents informed of each new movie's rating, though chances are they will also include plot synopses, which will additionally serve to market new family films (as well as other films for the parents to see on their own), even if unintentionally.