Digital Cinema Implementation Partners (DCIP), a consortium of exhibitors Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theatres and Cinemark, announced they have struck a deal with five Hollywood studios to support their digital cinema rollout. According to AP:

Five Hollywood studios have agreed to help pay for a $1 billion-plus rollout of digital technology on about 20,000 movie screens in North America, a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.

Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium of major theater chains, announced the deal Wednesday. The rollout in the U.S. and Canada, covering about half of all screens, is planned to start early next year.

DCIP topper Travis Reid noted that the rollout remains contingent on securing financing for the deal - a difficult task in the midst of the ongoing credit crisis.

"We'll be needing to execute in the debt markets and we hope to do that during the fourth quarter," Reid said. "We don't believe that the markets will be closed forever."

NATO applauded the agreement, but noted there are numerous theaters and screens not covered by the agreement.

With a deal in place for the largest U.S. theater chains, it is time to conclude a similar digital cinema agreement for the hundreds of independent cinemas and thousands of screens not covered by this agreement. It is imperative for the health of the industry and for the millions of moviegoers in small towns and cities that the benefits of digital cinema be spread as widely as possible.

NATO, through the Cinema Buying Group (CBG) and its selected digital cinema integrator Access Integrated Technologies, Inc. (AIX), continues to work with the studios to ensure that CBG members, who are smaller and independent exhibitors, often in small towns, are not left behind.

CBG's website is here. 

Share This

NPD's "Entertainment Trends in America" reports that nearly 80 percent of frequent moviegoers plan to go to the theater the same amount or more often than they did last year, despite news about a declining U.S. economy. Even among infrequent moviegoers (those who attend movies once or twice within three months) 57 percent plan to hold steady, or even increase, their attendance this year. (emphasis mine)

Taken from a sample of more than 11,000 consumers, the report notes certain factors that drive consumers to the movies:

The top reason cited by consumers who intend to go to the movies more often this year is the social experience of going with family, friends, or significant others (73 percent). Nearly half (48 percent) pointed to the overall "movie-theater experience" (e.g., large screen, sound systems, etc.) as a primary reason they like to watch movies in the theater.

Makes sense - and it's something we've been saying here quite a lot. Something else we've been saying - home entertainment technologies are not a threat to moviegoing. Movie theaters and home entertainment are complementary. People who love movies are promiscuous. They'll watch movies over and over and in many different ways.

According to NPD's report, frequent moviegoers are 20 percent more likely than the average movie-ticket buyer to purchase DVDs of recent theatrical releases. They are also 60 percent more likely to rent a movie downloaded from the Web, and 40 percent more likely to purchase a movie as a digital download.

We don't expect frisky movie-goers to confine their love solely to the movie theater. But we do believe in serial monogamy - the preservation of the theatrical release window. 

To sum up, the sky is not falling, movie theaters continue to not die. Will the Wall Street Journal report it? "Buehler...? Buehler...?"

Share This

Betsy Schiffman, writing for Wired's Epicenter blog, does the digging that the Wall Street Journal neglected.

What is surprising is that the industry isn't showing signs of a slowdown. In fact, this may shape up to be the second consecutive record-breaking summer at the box office. To some extent, inflation helps explain the phenomenon (rising prices drives up box office grosses), but that doesn't explain strong attendance numbers.

In actually researching the story that the Journal couldn't be bothered with, Schiffman went to the trouble of contacting NATO for our reaction to the story. I link to her story not only because yours truly is extensively quoted, but because Betsy Schiffman did what reporters are paid to do: get both sides of the story.

So don't ignore the Journal article because I think it's one-sided and inaccurate. Read it. Then read the Wired post and The Reel Blog post commenting on the Journal article. Agree or dsagree, at least you'll have enough information to come to a sensible conclusion.

A commenter on the Epicenter blog notes that ticket prices in Southern California run @ $10.50. This is generally the case for an adult admission at prime movie-going times. You can go for much less at a matinee and in areas outside the big cities. The average ticket prices cited historically were derived in the same way - the $2.23 average price from 1977 ($8.03 adjusted for inflation) was not the top ticket price then,  just the average. The same kind of gap betwen the top price you would pay in 1977 and the average price existed then, too.

Share This

Using as its jumping-off point a study by Interpret LLC, the article contends that people may be giving up movie-going in favor of staying home. The proof? Interpret asked 1,000 people, in addition to whether they are seeing more or fewr movies in theaters, 'if they had decided not to buy one of seven specific items in the last six months because of "concern over the economy," more respondents chose movie ticket than a range of options, including a car, DVD, videogame system and house.'

Comparing putting off seeing a movie because of money concerns to putting off buying a house or car? How many people were contemplating buying a house or car to begin with? People consider going to a movie weekly - if not more often.

The article retails some conventional wisdom that just doesn't hold up. "Those consumer behaviors are reflected in part at the box office, where any increases in ticket revenue in recent years have been largely attributable to higher ticket prices. Actual attendance has usually declined."

Some facts: Over 16 years, admissions declined five times and rose eleven times. Three of those years were recent. The past two years have been modest increases.

Share This

More impressively, "Overall, ticket sales continued to outperform last summer for the fourth weekend in a row. The weekend's estimated $139 million was up 6% from the comparable weekend last year, when "Evan Almighty" led the list with an opening take of $31.2 million, according to Nielsen EDI. As a result, summer boxoffice is now running 3% ahead of last summer."

This box office performance comes without a single movie with a "3" in the title.

The comparisons for the rest of the summer remain tough:

The 2008 summer films listed represent only my guess of likely suspects for comparison to 2007. There will be the usual box office disappointments and surprises. Nobody really knows anything until the audience shows up.

What are your guesses for summer box office contenders?

Share This

New figures just released by the Cinema Advertising Council, a trade org repping 82% of U.S. screens, show a hefty 18.5% gain in revenue to just shy of $540 million in 2007, up from $455.7 million a year earlier.

That revenue is significant for the mature, perennially product-dependent exhib biz because the vast majority of it goes directly to their coffers instead of being split with Hollywood.

Despite complaints that in-theater advertising is alienating audiences and driving disgruntled customers away, a 2007 Arbitron study found

that a majority of frequent moviegoers recalled specific ads and also did not mind having ads before the feature.

Adding more credence to that view is the remarkable track record of 2008 box office thus far. According to the AP:

A solid June lineup has pushed Hollywood ahead of last year's record box office pace. Since the first weekend of May, domestic grosses total $1.46 billion, up 4.6 percent from 2007's, according to Media By Numbers. Factoring in higher ticket prices, actual movie attendance this summer is up 1.6 percent.

2007's summer box office set a record with more than $4 billion in ticket sales. This summer is outpacing it so far without the trhee $300 million thee-quels that 2007 could boast. YTD, box office is off 1%.

Share This

Before getting outside the box office, they get right into it:

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: Will summer 2008 set another new boxoffice record?

CAMPBELL: We have a strong slate of films this summer, but what you’re missing is what I’d call the three money-in-the bank films you saw last year in May. There’s a lot of diversity in product this summer, but will it be a record summer? I can’t say that.

FITHIAN: This year we have a few more unknowns. Some of those will surprise on the upside and some on the downside.

THR: And the year?

CAMPBELL: What I would say about the fourth quarter is that last year that was our weakest quarter, so on a comparable basis I think there’s more powerful product in that quarter of this year.

FITHIAN: I don’t disagree at all. I think it’s also important to remember we are coming off two up years in a row.

 On ratings:

THR: Exhibitors tend to like less restrictive ratings, yet there continues to be a regular flow of R-rated movies. Are you OK with that?

CAMPBELL: From a selfish, economic point of view as an exhibitor, we do better with PG and PG-13 films, and on any given year you generally see 17 or 18 of the top 20 films as PG or PG-13. There is still a place for R-rated films, but we do better at the boxoffice and at the concessions with PG and PG-13 films.

FITHIAN: I am mystified why everybody in Hollywood wants to be Quentin Tarantino instead of trying to sell movie tickets.

 
THR: Any other specific advice for Hollywood on the kind of pictures they should make?

FITHIAN: More family titles of any genre. When you take an action film and decided to make it PG-13 instead of R, it does better. And in most cases, if you have a comedy and decide to make it PG-13 it does better, although there certainly is a role for the harder-edge comedies as well. But as the father of a 5-year-old, there are times I am looking to go to the movies with my child and can’t.

Year-round movie-going: 

THR: You like to encourage “ 12-month releasing.” Isn’t there a limit to how many tentpoles can open while school is in session?

FITHIAN: Yes, but we’re still doing it wrong. Virtually every school in the country is still in session the first weekend in May, and the biggest movies in 2007 were released over the first weekend in May. Yet we leave April almost entirely off the table, and the circumstances of school are very similar in April and May.

There are only so many blockbusters you can tolerate in the year, but in summer when they are so close together we are losing money. With those huge titles last May, we lost— in my estimation —$50 million$100 million because we had them all in one month. If one of those had been in April, I think we would have made a lot more money.

CAMPBELL: We could increase the boxoffice several percentage points by having a release schedule that was spread a little more evenly.

Read the rest here. 

Share This

Smithsonian Magazine has a nice overview of the history and appeal of this Anerican icon. 

On June 6, 2008 the flag flying over the U.S. Capitol will commemorate the 75th birthday of a distinctive slice of Americana: the drive-in movie theater.

It was on that day in 1933 that Richard Hollingshead opened the first theater for the auto-bound in Camden, N.J. People paid 25 cents per car as well as per person to see the British comedy Wives Beware under the stars.

The concept of showing movies outdoors wasn't novel; people often watched silent films on screens set up at beaches or other places boasting an abundance of sky. However, it took an auto-parts salesman such as Hollingshead to see the genius in giving a car-loving society one more activity they could do in their vehicles.

He first conceived the drive-in as the answer to a problem. "His mother was—how shall I say it?—rather large for indoor theater seats," said Jim Kopp of the United Drive-in Theatre Owners Association. "So he stuck her in a car and put a 1928 projector on the hood of the car, and tied two sheets to trees in his yard."

From that humble and slightly TMI beginning, the drive-in theater swelled to more than 4,000 screens at its peak in the 1950s. The advent of TV and the pressure of rising land values drove most of them out of business by the late 90s. Since then however, there has been a resurgence in interest, with the number of screens stabilizing and then rising once again.

Go, and learn more about the past, present and future of a movie institution.

Share This

 Publisher Nick Dager starts it off with a bang:

The answer lies in the fact that the studios, either by happenstance or by design, are taking a very passive-aggressive approach in their negotiations with DCIP. Several studios are demanding higher virtual print fees, which exhibitors insist they can’t afford. Other studios are demanding that exhibitors convert to digital now in order to justify the costs of the 3D features due out next summer.

In some cases that passive-aggressive attitude exists in the same studio. In interview after interview Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation has led the charge all but demanding that exhibitors waste no time in converting to digital, this of course so that his 3D movies can make more money. Yet his long-time partner Steven Spielberg tried to block the digital release of Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In a recent story on the topic reported in the Chicago Tribune Spielberg is quoted as saying, “Making a film on celluloid, as I like to do with all of my pictures, but then transferring it and releasing it and projecting it digitally is a very inferior image.”

Where does that leave the transition to digital cinema, and by necessity, 3D? 

 
Scylla, meet Charybdis:

John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, says the situation has placed exhibitors squarely between a rock and a hard place. "Several studio leaders currently hope to reduce substantially the virtual print fee support they are willing to provide for the digital cinema transition, at the same time that several other studio leaders demand that exhibition install many systems rapidly for the 3D slate in 2009,” he says.  “And at the same time one of the industry's filmmaking icons refuses to release a big summer picture on digital cinema screens except for locations where that is the only option. So, should we or should we not move faster with the digital roll out? How do they possibly believe that exhibitors will do anything less than push back? Maybe they should get their act together first before they try to tell us what to do."

So when do we put the "budge" in budget? Insiders differ. Some suggest the deals are dependent on a successful resolution to SAG/AMPTP negotiations, others ascribe the hold-up to the credit crunch fueled by the home mortgage meltdown.

What seems crystal clear (and you don't need special glasses to see it) is that the delay is all about the Benjamins. The 2009-2010 3D slate has only upped the urgency of resolving the basic calculation with a concrete and near-term demonstration of how much (and whose) money is at stake.

Share This

Share This