[29-Jul-2010 18:10:06] PHP Fatal error: Class 'FI_Filter' not found in /home/celluloi/public_html/wp-content/plugins/filled-in/extensions/filters/is_email.php on line 3 [29-Jul-2010 18:00:38] PHP Fatal error: Class 'Filled_In_Plugin' not found in /home/celluloi/public_html/wp-content/plugins/filled-in/models/email_attachment.php on line 3 Celluloid Junkie » NATO

Tag Archives: NATO

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.

NATO and Warner Bros. Duke It Out


Even before the ink was dry on last Thursday’s Los Angeles Times article about the struggle Hollywood studios face in finding enough digitally equipped screens to distribute 3-D movies, The Hollywood Reporter published a story that had key industry executives debating who is to blame for the slow rollout of digital cinema. Representing Warner Bros.’ Dan Fellmandistributors was Dan Fellman, Warner Bros.’ president of domestic distribution, while exhibitors were repped by John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owner. The article has the two exchanging verbal barbs, each blaming the other side for the lack of digital cinema installations.

The Reporter makes it seem as if Fithian was responding to statements Fellman made at a public forum, however they don’t say whether Fellman’s quotes come from any specific event or speech or simply an interview they conducted. It was the pending release of Warner Bros.’ 3-D flick “Journey to the Center of the Earth” that brought the issue to a head, which is why the distribution exec opened with:

“3-D is the future, so why is exhibition dragging its feet? I’m pleased ‘Journey’ will be the biggest digital 3-D release to date. But it is disconcerting that since November, the 3-D screen count has only gone up. . .”

Fellman’s quote is abruptly cut off by The Reporter - presumably a typo. Fithian was quick to answer however, in saying:

“It is particularly ironic and frustrating that a senior executive from Warner Bros. would accuse exhibition of ‘dragging its feet’ on 3-D when Warners has been the absolutely slowest of all major studios to come to the table with support for the d-cinema rollout. If Warners believes there are an insufficient number of 3-D screens in the marketplace today, they have no one to blame but themselves and they know it.”

What Fithian is referring to is Warner Bros. reluctance to enter into virtual print fee (VPF) agreements that provide an exhibitor a subsidy for the installation of digital cinema equipment. In essence, the studio will pay a fee for every screen one of their movies play on and that fee will go toward the purchase of D-cinema equipment. System integrators such as Digital Cinema Integration Partners and Access Integrated Technologies have been trying for some time to negotiate a VPF deal with studios and Warner has proven one of the few holdouts. The studio has only signed one agreement with XDC for rollouts in Europe. Because that deal pegs the VPF at USD $850, many in the industry have argued that Warners was simply trying to remove doubt they were serious about digital cinema by signing the cheapest contract they could find.

Whatever Warner Bros. reasoning for shying away from VPF deals, Fellman believes the studio has firmly supported D-cinema:

“Warner Bros. has released more films digitally than any other studio, without question. Our discussion is with exhibition, circuit by circuit, and John has never attended one business session at which any Warner exec was present. . . We are continuing to serve every digital theater that request a (digital) print. We stand by our record.”

John FithianDespite Warners’ track record, Fithian definitely faults the major studios with holding hope the world-wide digital cinema roll out:

“Exhibition stands ready to provide our patrons in the U.S. and around the world with wider access to exciting 3-D technologies as soon as all of our partners in distribution come to agreement on the level of support they will provide for the underlying digital cinema infrastructure. You cannot have 3-D without D-cinema. And we cannot have digital cinema by ‘negotiating’ through the media.”

Negotiating?! Seems more like they are arguing to me. Though that could well pass for negotiating in Hollywood.

Stop Whining And Be Grateful For Those Cheap Cinema Tickets


Borat movie ticket The LA Time’s cinema columnist ‘Projector’ has a humorous op-ed piece echoing the NATO/MPAA song that going to the cinema is still the cheapest form of entertainment. Not just compared to going to a sporting event or visiting the opera, but even compared to trips to the picture palace of yesteryear. But he doesn’t fall for the popcorn merchants propaganda hook-line and sinker:

Of course, Projector is too savvy to entirely buy the exhibitors’ assertion that movies “remain the most affordable form of out-of-home entertainment.” They never considered a brisk 5K jog around the Rose Bowl, nor open-mike poetry night at many coffeehouses.

And movie popcorn and other snacks are notoriously pricey, which explains why theaters generate roughly 20% of their revenue but 40% of their profit at the concession stand.

Ironically, the high cost of goodies helps moviegoers, according to new research from Stanford University and UC Santa Cruz, because concession revenue enables theaters to keep ticket prices in check. Projector, who only went to a state school, can’t argue with that logic.

There is even some advice for the savvier cinema goer:

Frequent filmgoers can save several hundreds of dollars a year by selecting theaters and showtimes carefully. Sure, the Rolling Stones’ concert movie “Shine a Light” is worth $15 a ticket on a large Imax screen at the AMC CityWalk Stadium 19, but if cash is tight, consider a $5 matinee of whatever is playing at the pleasant-enough, single-screen Vista Theatre in Los Feliz. Some chains also offer bulk ticket discounts, but beware of any restrictions.

If your movie is showing at the mall, you can live dangerously by smuggling in a Mrs. Fields cookie or a packet of sour gummy worms, thereby supporting a broader swath of the economy. Projector, of course, can’t condone such a potentially flagrant violation of theater policy. He’s just sayin’.

Those interested in the Stanford University and UC Santa Cruz concession revenue report can find out more here. From the press release:

The findings empirically answer the age-old question of whether it’s better to charge more for a primary product (in this case, the movie ticket) or a secondary product (the popcorn). Putting the premium on the “frill” items, it turns out, indeed opens up the possibility for price-sensitive people to see films. That means more customers coming to theaters in general, and a nice profit from those who are willing to fork it over for the Gummy Bears.

Indeed, movie exhibition houses rely on concession sales to keep their businesses viable. Although concessions account for only about 20 percent of gross revenues, they represent some 40 percent of theaters’ profits. That’s because while ticket revenues must be shared with movie distributors, 100 percent of concessions go straight into an exhibitor’s coffers.

Although if distributors could decide they would get a share of that revenue and profit as well. Equally interesting is another finding:

In another study examining Spanish theaters, the researchers discovered: Moviegoers who purchase their tickets over the Internet also tend to buy more concession items than those who purchase them at the door, by phone, at kiosks, or at ATMs (the latter option has not yet hit the United States). More research is needed to figure out why, but for now this suggests that theaters may want to be sure to partner with an Internet service to make such ticketing available–or even take the function in-house.

People who come to the movies in groups also tend to buy more popcorn, soda, and candy, Hartmann and Gil found. While this, too, merits more investigation, it may be that such groups comprise families or teenagers. “If that turns out to be the case, it may be that theaters will want to run more family- or adolescent-oriented movies to attract a more concession-buying crowd,” Hartmann says.

No surprise there either that John Fithian is arguing for more PG films. He knows which side his popcorn are butter coated on. Those wishing to download the research paper can find it in PDF form here.

Photo credit: www.mobilnews.cz/blog

AccessIT Wins Cinema Buying Group Bid


Cinema Buying GroupAfter months of industry speculation, the Cinema Buying Group (CBG) has finally announced which digital cinema integrator they will be going with to help roll out the emerging technology to its more than 600 members in the United States and Canada. The buying program put together by the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) for small and independent theatre operators announced that AccessIT was their choice to provide digital cinema equipment and service to more than 8,000 screens.

When CBG initially sent out their request for proposal back in the first half of 2007 it quickly sent digital cinema integrators and equipment suppliers into a frenzy. Of the ten vendors that submitted initial proposals, CBG slimmed the list down to four finalists by November of last year; AccessIT, Digiserv, Kodak and Technicolor. Another round of information gathering occurred before CBG made their decision public earlier today.

Read More »

Katzenberg Sees The Future and It’s In 3D


Jeffrey KatzenbergAs previously reported here the big buzz this year at ShowEast is definitely digital 3D. In case there were still any doubters here at ShowEast, DreamWorks Animation topper Jeffrey Katzenberg turned up on Tuesday morning to preach the 3D gospel to 1,000 or so attendees at a breakfast sponsored by Technicolor Digital Cinema and Barco Digital Cinema. Joining Katzenberg on the panel, which was moderated by NATO CEO John Fithian, was Chris Johnson, president of Chicago based Classic Cinemas.

Some of what Katzenberg had to say was recycled from a talk he gave NATO earlier this year. He explained that when DreamWorks was first started, there would be five or six animated movies a year, each being considered special. But with 15 or 16 animated films being released each year now Katzenberg wondered, “How do we elevate our product back to a level where we would be considered exceptional and unique?”

Katzenberg firmly believes that 3D is the answer. DreamWorks animated releases will all be 3D starting in 2009 and Katzenberg points to high profile filmmakers who have begun working in the medium, including George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis, Peter Jackson and James Cameron. He credits filmmaking tools that were not around two years ago for enabling an advanced stereoscopic filmmaking revolution. In fact, Katzenberg and Cameron, who is presently working on the 3D film “Avatar“, have scheduled a training session with 150 top Hollywood filmmakers to demonstrate all the tools and technology now available to create 3D movies.

Whether exhibiting films in 3D will take off may come down to simple economics. Katzenberg said it costs roughly $15 million to take one of DreamWorks animated features 3D. He figures it will be about the same for films that are being made from the outset as 3D releases since they essentially have to make the film twice; once for 3D and once for traditional 2D screens. More telling however, is that Johnson says he has seen incremental box office growth at his theaters when showing 3D films next to the same release in 2D.

“Whenever you have a technology that increases your gross you want to look into that,” said Johnson. “If it is only going to get better than we are in good shape.”

Johnson admitted that he increased the ticket price for 3D releases by a dollar which Katzenberg felt was too low. Though not allowed by law to suggest ticket prices directly to exhibitors, Katzenberg waved five fingers in the air at the audience as if to greet them, suggesting a $5 surcharge on 3D films. “Much like with Imax, you should and can and will, I hope charge an incremental price for this experience,” Katzenberg urged, going on to say that an exhibitor’s increased revenue from just one stereoscopic release would pay to convert a digital cinema system to 3D.

And according to Katzenberg exhibitors better start converting their screens soon, not only to digital, but also to digital 3D, as he believes a majority of all releases will move be 3D in the next several years. He made it clear that he believes 3D is the wave f the future and exhibitors better get on board.

“This is the first opportunity in decades for the exhibition industry to significantly change the theatrical experience,” Katzenberg proclaimed. “We are doing our part in Hollywood to roll the product out. . . I need you to stop being skeptical about us. I would just like you to believe in your business as much as I do.”

How to keep trouble (makers) from your cinema


Kerasotes cinemas Here is a fairly controversial way of keeping potential troublemakers from your cinema - ban under-17s from late night screenings on Fridays and Saturdays. That’s the what the chairman and CEO of Kerasotes Theatres has started doing after a shooting incident at one of his cinemas. The article in the Chicago Tribune (Theater owner limits kids’ access, delays movies to stop problems) points out that the issue is not unique for Springfield, Ill:

Theaters nationwide have tried the no-kids approach for a variety of reasons, says Patrick Corcoran, spokesman for the National Association of Theatre Owners. Some want to serve alcohol, he says. Sometimes having teens at mall-based theaters after closing time makes mall owners nervous.

“Too many kids hanging out, and people get worried,” Corcoran says.

Kerasotes, whose chain operates more than 800 movie screens, has tackled the issue head-on wherever he sees a problem — even if his methods draw criticism.

Teens under 18 in Cicero, Ill., and South Bend, Ind., are not admitted to movies without parents unless they attend a 10-minute “code of conduct” presentation, verified by an ID they must show.

I would love to see what the 10 minute ‘code of conduct’ presentation’ is like, but since I don’t live in Illinois and would not want to encourage someone to sneak in a camcorder and record it and share it on YouTube as that is very, very illegal in most US states, I guess I’ll probably never know.

With the town of Springfield having a large Latino population, the issue of race obviously comes up, but the truth is that it is at heart a age-related demographic-economic issue. Older patrons are becoming increasingly important to cinemas and they can’t have the perception of troublesome kids wrecking the cinema keeping the growing pool of well of OAPs away from screenings of ‘The Jane Austen Book Club‘ and similar genteel fare.

Kerasotes admits as much, when the article reveals that “Although last year’s shooting factored into his decision to try it, it’s more an attack on teens who have a “different culture of moviegoing,” text-messaging or conversing aloud with friends while the reels roll, Kerasotes says.” Completely age segregated multiplexes, anyone?