Category Archives: Analysis

Summer B.O. Blame Game Has Already Started


Apparently the stars are to blame for not delivering more hits this summer, which appropriately enough finished this past weekend with the star-less sci fi film District 9 taking the top spot. Not that it was a bad summer, since early reports indicate that there is a year-on-year increase for 2009 so far. It is just that the hits were not delivered by the actors with $20m pay packets, according to the New York Times:

The gradual trend away from big-star vehicles in the summer has been under way for years.

At the start of the decade, summer still belonged to names: Cruise (“Mission Impossible II”), Crowe (“Gladiator”) and Clooney (“The Perfect Storm”) were the top three in 2000. But the three biggest films of this summer season, a crucial period from May 1 to Labor Day that typically accounts for 40 percent of annual ticket sales, have been “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” “Up” and “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”

The fading ability of Hollywood stars to command box-office attention, and why that is happening, has been a perennial topic in Hollywood. And economists and academics have long argued that marquee names are not worth their expense.

The biggest names attached to those films: Shia LaBoeuf, Ed Asner and Daniel Radcliffe.

So are the studios going to stop using stars? No, they will simply ask them to take a pay cut as they always have. And further into the article the blame falls on social networking and Twitter - as discussed below.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Cinemas - Ignore Baby Boomers At your Own Peril


senior-vue

This very good article from the New York Times does not dicsuss cinema or cinema advertising explicitly. But the implications are writ large for the two about the growing importance of the aging US (and European) population in terms of impact it will have on spending habits.

For decades, older consumers were largely shunned by marketers because they were deemed less wealthy, less likely to try new products and less willing to change brands. Campaigns directed at them were described dismissively as made for the “Geritol generation.” As much as older consumers were to be shunned, young consumers — ages 18 to 34, or 18 to 49 — were desired for what were deemed their free-spending ways, eagerness to sample new products and brand-switching proclivities. The idea that they were starting in life with a proverbial blank slate of marketing wants and needs was catnip to product peddlers.

Those attitudes have been changing, for a couple of reasons. One is the recession, which makes older consumers who may have paid off mortgages seem a safer bet than younger ones who may get laid off in last-hired, first-fired downsizings.

The hard numbers bear out this thinking.

Although “18 to 49 is going to remain the predominant buying demographic,” Mr. Donchin said, “this country is aging, and the boomers are an attractive demographic.”

That appeal is because of the size of the boomer market and because, as Mr. Donchin put it, “50 isn’t what it used to be.”

Older consumers today “are not as resistant to change” as older consumers previously may have been, Mr. Donchin said, summarizing their attitude as “Show me something better, and I’ll try it.”

And the boomers are even “comfortable with digital media,” he added.

Hollywood studios are slowly waking up to this as well, with films like “The Queen” having significantly higher investment return ratios than even big hits like “The Dark Knight”.

But cinemas are only slowly embracing this fact. UK exhibitor Vue spoke on a panel at ShoWest about how it has introduced screenings aimed at an older clientele where they don’t have to sit next to youngsters chatting on mobile phones. Vue may soon want to consider targeting 45-65s with wine and cheese in the evening, rather than just the 65+ tea-and-biscuit crowd.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Digital Cinema Integrators Continue to Bleed Money

There is a standing joke in the industry that to make a small fortune in digital cinema you need to start with a large fortune. Sadly, this sentiment seems to be vindicated by the latest quarterly figures from Cinedigm (formerly AccessIT). The company’s scorecard is impressive enough:

Cinedigm Digital Report Card

And the revenue has been going up year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter, as the press release proudly trumpets:

Access Integrated Technologies, now doing business as Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. (”Cinedigm” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: CIDM), reported a 10% increase in year-to-date revenue to $65.1 million, and a 6% increase in revenues, to $22.7 million for the fiscal 2009 third quarter ended December 31, 2008, versus the year-ago periods. The Company posted an Adjusted EBITDA (defined below) of $11.0 million or $0.40 per share, an improvement from the fiscal 2008 third quarter of $8.4 million.

But is there any profit? No, the company is still burning through money. $17.4m in losses in the most recent quarter to be precise. What are the implications of this? The 10-Q transcript makes for grim reading; Read More »

Popularity: 51% [?]

How digital cinema can make a difference (unleash your archive!)


UKFC logo The always readable Andreas Fuchs has an excelent piece in the latest issue of Film Journal International on the difference that the UK Film Council’s Digital Screen Network has made. It was never intended to help the Hollywood blockbusters, though arguably it got the ball rolling in UK for digital cinema, but the benefits have been tangible where they were intended. From the article:

Last year, “The Summer of British Film” used the Digital Screen Network to bring back classic British films. Seven films from Goldfinger to Withnail & I were shown digitally in 136 cinemas each Tuesday over a period of as many weeks. “We tied in with the BBC’s ‘British Film Forever’ series of documentaries, which looked at seven different film genres the preceding Saturday,” Stolz explains. “Each program genre under discussion was then illustrated [with] a classic British film in cinemas.” This initiative was “a great success and demonstrated the possibilities of digital programming, attracting cinema audiences of over 62,000. We received extremely enthusiastic responses from members of the public who were delighted to see these classic films back on the big screen. This summer we are supporting two distributors in releasing classics from the legendary British filmmaker David Lean.”

Although any one of Sir David’s films certainly more than matters, it was Warner Bros. which had already opened its vaults on that particular note. From mid-May onwards, the first “Movies That Matter” festival brought 15 marvelous titles for one-week engagements into 30 Vue Cinemas across the U.K. (www.warnermtm.co.uk). Starting in Casablanca and bloody well ending for Bonnie and Clyde, with highlights like The Wizard of Oz in between and East of Eden and North by Northwest further pointing in the right directions, the press notes promised them all to be “remastered to flawless, crystal-clear 2K-resolution digital cinema, the highest quality standard in cinemas today.”

Sadly the UKFC’s example has not been adopted very widely. With the exception of the anyways exceptional Norway, only Canada and Australia has adopted something similar, though these went arguably wrong by going for lower end e-cinema networks.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Cinemas: “Recession? Bring it on!”


coffee recession

Recession is now a fact, but cinemas appear fairly nonplussed. Is this wishful thinking or actually born out by past experience? The UK’s The Guardian seems to think the latter, pointing out that box office takings rose in five out of the last seven recessions in the US:

“Hollywood gets bump from slump” was the trade bible Variety’s front-page headline, and industry analysts believe the relatively low cost of going to the cinema and the prospect of offering an escape from financial concerns for two hours will give cinema chains some resilience.

In Britain, box office revenues and cinema attendances continued to rise throughout the late 1980s and early 90s as the multiplex revolution swept through the country and going to see a movie again became a viable, low-cost leisure option for millions.

“Box office revenues definitely came up in the early 90s. As far as I can see there’s very little evidence to show cinema attendance suffers in a recession. If anything, it does quite well,” said David Hancock, head of film and cinema at Screen Digest.

This sentiment was echoed by the heads of both NATO and Regal cinemas in a recent interview in THR.com:

THR: Exhibition tends to be recession-resistant, but wouldn’t a spreading recession hurt concession sales?

Campbell: This is the most affordable out-of-home entertainment option that consumers have available, but at some point, do people stop buying concessions? I don’t think so. At some point, people may be a little more selective in some of their purchases, but at this point in time we haven’t seen that.

THR: Do hard times hurt smaller chains and mom-and-pop exhibitors more?

Fithian: I don’t believe there is a different impact on smaller chains in hard economic times. In fact, it is often the consumers in smaller markets who are most challenged during recessions. So they don’t take the vacation. Higher gas prices mean they don’t go for long drives to theme parks or other places. They stay closer to home, and when people stay closer to home, they tend to go to the cinema more often.

The optimism seems to be backed up by numbers from screen advertising in the US, again from THR.com:

CAC president and chairman Stu Ballatt predicted that the industry’s double-digit percentage growth path would continue “for the next few years at least.”

He said a sluggish U.S. economy does not seem to slow marketers’ willingness to put money into cinema promotions. For example, Ballatt cited increased activity across many sectors, with cinema ad spending by packaged goods and retail companies showing particularly strong growth during the past six to 12 months.

Cinemas and Hollywood are ‘fortunate’ in the sense that the past couple of years stagnation and even slump (once you look at actual attendance, as opposed to BO growth) could be blamed on poor films, whereas this summer’s crop has performed better - and this is before the fantastic Dark Knight opens (we’ve seen it and we know it is going to make Iron Man look like Tin Man when it comes to both critical and audience acclaim).

But there are those that doubt that cinemas will escape the brunt of the recession unscathed. Foremost amongst them The Guardian’s resident Hollywood contrarian Jon Patterson:

As for the benighted ticket-buyers, I wonder this time if they’ll display the same bovine sense of product loyalty the moguls depend on when times are tight. During the Depression, a movie ticket bought you a cartoon, a newsreel, a B feature and a marquee-topper - something like four hours of entertainment for a nickel (the price of a gallon of gas or a pack of smokes back then). A bargain if you needed to escape your troubles or just eat up dead unemployment time - and the movies were good enough that around 5bn tickets were sold between 1934 and Pearl Harbor. It was hard to feel Greatly Depressed when Astaire and Rogers, Gary Cooper, the Marx Brothers or Eddie Cantor were living it up on screen.

But things are different now, and films aren’t nearly the draw they were then. In 1938, the movies competed only with such distractions as booze, sex, God, the radio or political agitation; there was no streaming online video, no computer games, no 60in plasma TVs, no home-movie market whatsoever. If the economy collapsed tomorrow, would seeing Transformers 2 alleviate your misery or simply compound it? Dear viewer, you have options!

In the insurgent spirit of that turbulent decade, let’s call for a Netflix Revolution: we just stay home and watch as many movies as we like for 13 bucks a month. Those moguls could use a little sojourn in Hooverville - it might improve their movies, too.

Cineflix or Netflix - the choice is yours. Let’s see where the tally stands at the end of the summer.

Popularity: 57% [?]

Kinepolis blames 2007 downturn on films


Kinepolis logoAn interesting difference between perceptions of cinema in Europe and US is that the success of a film or cinema year is that admissions are counted by number of admissions in most European countries but in the US bucks at the box office is the only measure. Hence, 2007 was recently hailed as a growth year in the US, even though admissions plateaued after years of stagnation or static. But fewer bums on the seats is bad business, even if ticket price inflation masks that fact.

Belgian/European multiplex major Kinepolis has just posted their 2007 numbers, which are down by 3.4 per cent in terms of admissions. Kinepolis “said the drop was ‘due mainly to the comparison with the very strong results recorded in 2006, the warm spring and the mediocre range of international films’.” There’s no mentioning of digital cinema plans with Technicolor stalling, though in fairness cinema goers come to see films, not projectors.

I’ve yet to meet an exhibitor who was not upbeat about the prospects of the films in the coming year and Kinepolis is no exception. “‘The range of films on offer over the next few months looks very promising,’ said the group, citing ‘Asterix and Obelix’, the 3D film ‘Fly Me to the Moon’, the next Bond film and Indiana Jones 4.”

Popularity: 11% [?]

Q: Which 3D technology is best? A: Dolby’s!

All stereoscopic cinema technologies are not created equal, or rather, the presentations are not identical. But it is not just, say, the size difference between, say Imax and a RealD presentation that is noticeable, but even differences between different types of digital 3D presentations stand out (if you pardon the pun). cNet’s Stephen Shankland (NB: NOT the man in the picture above - that’s scary looking CrunchGear Guy sporting Dolby 3D specs) sat through three of the four different types of 3D cinema solutions available commercially today (NuVision/XpanD’s active glasses screenings appear not to have been available to him in the US).

It turns out that it was not so much an apples, apples and oranges as Granny Smith, Golden Delicious and clementines type of experience. It is worth reading the whole article (Who shows the best view of 3D ‘Beowulf’?) for many interesting insights. For those who want to cut to the chase (and missed the headline of this item), the winner was the newest kid on the stereoscopic technology block:

Based on watching the movie start to finish three times, the 3D winner is Dolby 3D–and not just by a nose.

Dolby’s technology gave a sharp image that showed every beard bristle, the colors were relatively rich, flicker from moving objects was nonexistent, but most significantly, the sense of depth was strong. Even the subtle differences between a character’s facial features were perceptible, and group shots with a host of characters showed as true depth, not as a number of gradually more distant two-dimensional layers. I was truly impressed.

Now there are several things t be said about this comparison. The first is that it was a ‘comparison’ and not a ‘test’, let alone a ’shoot out’. I cannot voucher for Mr Shankland’s vision, but chances are that he is not what Hollywood considers a pair of ‘Golden Eyes’. He is a knowledgeable and perceptive writer. So while I don’t doubt his judgment - and not having seen ‘Beowulf’ in ANY 3D form I’m in even less of a position to comment - it is important to remember that this was not a controlled experiment but an assessment of the average viewer’s experience.

As such, it is in some ways more important than a test in the old Pacific Theater that was the ETC’s Digital Cinema Lab. The writer says as much himself, so with all these caveats in mind it is interesting to dig deeper into his findings. The first is that artistic interventions have obviously been made in calibrating the 3D experience, particularly between Imax and digital 3D. This is an area that is just beginning to be understood and discussed Disney’s Howard Lukk has given several excellent presentations on this, talking about the ‘plane’ of the stereoscopic image.

Imax is ‘in your face’, whereas RealD is more the type of 3D that has been described as ’surround sound for your eyes’, ‘box’ or ‘Doll House’ type of stereoscopics. Yet Dolby appears to have won out on the strength of the three ‘C’s (coherence, colour, clarity). This is surprising to industry observers, as the colour separation that underpins the Dolby (it was licensed from Germany’s Infitec) was long thought to cause it problems with accurate colour separation. Now the talk is instead that the struggle is to make the glasses that employ 16 or more layers of colour-separating film, cheap enough to manufacture in volume to compete with the disposable RealD circular polarized glasses.

Ultimately ‘Beowulf’ is not the best films to judge the merits of all three technologies (or even four or five, if you add active glasses and the Korean system under development) because it is CG-animation and mostly takes places in dark and dim caves, so the light-loss that all 3D systems suffer is masked. But this article is not just the first but a very, very good comparison that will hopefully stimulate more discussion and research around the subject.

Popularity: 66% [?]

Beowulf Spells Bad News For Digital 3D Business


‘Beowulf’, the first ‘grown-up’ digital 3D release, is out and while it conquered the box office and heaps were praised on the 3D animation, the underlying numbers spell bad news for digital 3D.

There’s been an avalanche of press releases, news, announcements and comment pieces on the digital 3D aspects of ‘Beowulf’ in the run up to the films US and international release. Everything from the number of Russian screens showing it in digital and digital 3D (24, in case you can’t be bothered to click on the link) to how many countries will be showing it using the Dolby system (12) - though at 75 screens in total it is less than the 86 screens in the US that Dolby screened the first digital 3D films on two years ago, then using the RealD system. One of the best overviews is provided by the always-worth-reading Carolyn Giardina in The Hollywood Reporter (’Beowulf’s’ bow takes 3-D to the next level). There we learn amongst other things that:

Real D was the first 3-D system out of the gate and represents the lion’s share of current installations. At press time, it was expected that there would be about 620 Real D-equipped auditoriums showing “Beowulf” in 3-D this weekend. Real D’s technique requires the use of a “silver screen” and “circular polarized” glasses. It enables 3-D on screens maxing out around 47 feet high. For any system, screen size comes down to how much light can get to the screen from the projector.

Read More »

Popularity: 39% [?]

A cinema holiday bigger than Thanksgiving


OSOThat would be Diwali, celebrated in India, its neighboring states and NRIs (non-resident Indians) all over the world. The five-day Festival of Light has in recent years become the favourite holiday for the big ticket Bollywood film releases. And this year was the biggest of them all, with the head-head battle of ‘Om Shanti Om‘, starring the King of Bollywood Shah Rukh Khan, versus the Sony Pictures-backed ‘Saawariya‘.The proof of just how big the Diwali release event has become is amply demonstrated by the fact that ‘Saawariya’ out grossed ‘Lions for Lambs’ at the international box office. From The Hollywood Reporter:

“Saawariya,” a nearly three-hour musical in Hindi with English subtitles based on Dostoyevsky’s “White Nights,” brought in an estimated $15.4 million from 900 screens in 13 markets. Almost all of the gross came from India, where the film opened No. 2 with an estimated $14.4 million from 754 screens.

“Lions,” director Robert Redford’s reading of contemporary events in Washington and the Middle East, opened at 2,681 screens in 45 markets for an estimated $10.3 million, less than $4,000 per screen. The film, costarring Cruise, Meryl Streep and Redford, also opened this weekend as the No. 4 film domestically.

SaawariyaWhile THR speculates that ‘Lions for Lambs’ under-performed due to bad reviews, the largely negative reviews of ‘Saawariya’ in Indian press (compared to a much more glowing review from the THR, which clearly does not understand Hindi-language cinema that well) did not hamper its first weekend performance. But while ‘Saawariya’ conquered the international box office, the domestic Indian battle appears to have been won by OSO, according to the Economic Times:

NEW DELHI: The audience verdict is out. The box office seems to favour Shah Rukh Khan’s ” Om Shanti Om ” in comparison to Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s much-touted magnum opus ” Saawariya “.

While King Khan’s film registered 90 percent occupancy across the country on its Diwali release, Bhansali’s love story managed 60 percent.

According to Vishal Kapur, COO of Fun Cinemas, the Shah Rukh film has generated a lot of repeat audience interest in comparison to ” Saawariya “.

“Among our 15 cineplexes across the country, the bigger ones did a business of at least Rs.500,000 and smaller ones Rs.150,000 on Friday. ‘ Saawariya ‘ churned out Rs.350,000 at the big centres, while at the smaller ones it could only manage to collect Rs.78,000,” Kapur told IANS.

The difference of how well both the films would do in the coming days is also evident from the advance bookings.

“For Saturday, 50 percent of advance booking has been done for ‘Om Shanti Om’ while for ‘Saawariya’ it is just a little over 20 percent,” said Ashok Bisht, assistant manager of JAM multiplex, Noida.

According to Screen International, OSO took $17m in India, outperforming ‘Saawariya’s’ $14.4m from 754 screens. So when ‘OSO’ goes big internationally we should expect it to perform even better than ‘Saawariya’. The growth of the Indian film industry has been noted by Fortune, which in an article called ‘ Time to short Facebook, buy Bollywood‘ believes that the film, cinema and media industry of South Asia has the better long term growth potential:

PriceWaterhouse Coopers forecasts that India is going to have the fastest growing media and entertainment industry in the world, rising at a compound growth rate of 18.5% between 2006 and 2011. The film business alone is expected to double in size during that period, to some $4.4 billion.

And what is perhaps most uniquely fascinating about the movie business in India is how popular it is domestically — some 95% of movie tickets sold in India are to see Indian films (this despite the increasing availability of dubbed versions of popular Hollywood films and the somewhat overdue arrival of multiplex theaters offering filmgoers much greater choice.)

That 95%, by the way, is roughly in line with how popular American films are in their home market, and dramatically different than how domestic films fare in a lot of other major markets. According to some academic studies, French and Japanese films sell only around 1/3 of the tickets in those countries, the domestic take at the box office is even lower in Britain.

The latest financial figures of the four major Indian exhibitors confirm this verdict - and that’s before the takings of this Diwali’s releases were counted. A Happy Diwali indeed for Indian exhibitors.

Popularity: 22% [?]

Official: Irish love their filum in cinemas


Irish Destiny poster Statistics released by the European statistical agency Eurostat has revealed that the Irish are the Union’s most frequent cinema-goers, with over four visits per year, compared to the EU average of just under two. From an article in the Hollywood Reporter:

The Irish are Europe’s keenest cinemagoers, hitting the theater an average of 4.2 times a year, compared with the European Union average of 1.9.

The figures from EU statistical agency Eurostat, published Monday, reveal that other eager cinemagoers included the French (3.0), the Spanish (2.8) and Luxembourgers (2.7), while the least frequent attendees were the Romanians (0.1), Bulgarians (0.3) and Slovakians (0.6).

In the past year, 51% of EU citizens said they had been to the cinema at least once, though this figure stood at 71% in Sweden, 69% in Denmark and 66% in Ireland. When broken down by age, the figures showed the dominance of youth: 82% of 15- to 24-year-olds had been to the cinema at least once versus 66% of 25- to 39-year-olds, 53% of 40- to 54-year-olds and 24% of those over 55.

The report can be found here.  However, if non-EU countries had been taken into consideration Iceland might have nudged out Ireland, as pan-European statistics from Screen Digest tend to confirm the smaller of the two north Atlantic islands as the the number one home of cinema buffs.

According to the report, the most internationalist viewers seem to live in Sweden and Denmark, where 73 and 74 per cent respectively reported having seen a ‘foreign language’ film or television programme in the past year - though I assume that they mean non-English, or the rate would have been closer to 100 per cent.

Popularity: 12% [?]