Are the streamers runnign out of st(r)eam?

[Bobby Henderson]

I've given some thought to Bobby's assertion that if cinemas made more money, presentations would improve. I can't think of (and haven't seen) any evidence supporting this idea. Even Bobby seems to agree that the profits would probably just go to owners, shareholders, and corporate management.

Improvements in cinema show quality are NOT going to happen for free. What ever the reasons may be the current business model for most theaters includes operating those theaters with as few employees as possible for as little as the theater chain can get away with paying them. For most theater employees, even the GM in a lot of cases, working in a cinema is a shit-quality job.

I reported the green light shining across the screen in auditorium 9 at Regal's Continental at the end of 2015.

Chances are good that whoever received the complaint probably didn't work for Regal very long after hearing it. If employee morale is low they're going to work on auto-pilot and not care much about any repair needs or show quality issues in the theater. And even if someone working in the theater actually cares there is still the very real barrier of upper management at regional and corporate offices refusing to approve any repair/maintenance jobs.

I still maintain that ending the release window would be the best thing for the moviegoing experience. Yes, large number of screens would vanish, but a large number of screens aren't currently providing an acceptable experience.

You're still ignoring my earlier point about the ecosystem of cinema products and how they need at least so many cinemas to exist for the product ecosystem to be viable.

Texas Instruments won't continue to make DLP chips for d-cinema projectors if the number of theaters in the US dwindles down to just a few hundred screens or less. The same goes for the rest of that projector hardware and other specialized, industry-specific equipment. All of those product lines will disappear. No one will start making film projectors again as a back-up plan either. The only remnants that would survive are speaker and amp components that can work in other kinds of concert/event sound systems.

A 100% day and date release plan will put more than 90% of cinemas out of business in a matter of months. I'm pretty sure if 9 out of 10 cinemas closed the entire release platform would be abandoned.

The following year, 2016 saw the second highest U.S. box-office ever. 2018 was number one, at almost twelve billion dollars.

How much of that actually went to the movie theaters? Further, of the cinemas' share of box office take how much of that went back into the theaters (building upkeep, staff, etc)?

[Geoff Jones]

I've given some thought to Bobby's assertion that if cinemas made more money, presentations would improve.

I can't think of (and haven't seen) any evidence supporting this idea. Even Bobby seems to agree that the profits would probably just go to owners, shareholders, and corporate management.

But it isn't difficult to find evidence to the contrary.

I reported the green light shining across the screen in auditorium 9 at Regal's Continental at the end of 2015.

The following year, 2016 saw the second highest U.S. box-office ever. 2018 was number one, at almost twelve billion dollars.

In the six years following my complaint, Regal has been unable to set aside $25 to buy the plywood, black felt, and screws that could be used to rectify the problem without diminishing the effectiveness of the exit sign.



I still maintain that ending the release window would be the best thing for the moviegoing experience. Yes, large number of screens would vanish, but a large number of screens aren't currently providing an acceptable experience. The theaters doing a good job would hopefully thrive and people who cared about presentation would be more likely go to the cinema. People who didn't would stay home. Currently, the opposite is increasingly true.

Maybe the exhibition industry would be unable to survive, as Bobby asserts. I'm hopeful. The moviegoing experience can be magical and there are plenty of services and activities with smaller customer bases that still find a way to be profitable.


If there are other ideas about how to improve the moviegoing experience, I'd be curious to hear them.

[Randy Stankey]

I think it's just butt-headed budget keeping.

There's a place that I know of where management spent a bunch of money to build a guest lounge with a fridge, a coffee bar then outfitted it with all, brand new, custom furniture. Then, when people ask for tools to do their jobs they are told that they can't afford it.

If you ask about why they spent so much money, the answer is that they want to have a place where potential customers who visit the plant can be comfortable.

Umm... What visitors? Visiting has been curtailed due to COVID!

Several of the employees at that place have been joking around and saying that they should all chip in and buy a pound of Kopi Luwak coffee for the managers to drink.

I'm willing to bet that the same kind of thing is going on at AMC.

Customers watch shit movies while bosses sit and drink coffee.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Customers watch good movies while bosses drink shit-coffee?... Made from real shit!

[Bobby Henderson]

I have a strong feeling that problems are getting noticed in many theaters run by the big chains (AMC, Regal, etc), but are not being fixed anyway. Deferred maintenance to stretch a buck. "Do the customers really need all those speakers to work? Or can we get by with just enough speakers? If a customer finds a hacked up, vandalized seat can't he just move to another one? We don't need all the seats do be in perfect shape do we?"

[Geoff Jones]

When we see post after post about problems that are reported but go unfixed, it makes me wonder what's the point of spending money to detect additional problems...

[Harold Hallikainen]

I wouldn't think it would be too expensive to have automated systems that can monitor the audio and video and report issues like channels not functioning or blown speaker drivers. An automated test pattern image and test tone sequence after each show concludes could be checked by a system and then issues can be reported to the management or responsible technician. I'm sure it gets expensive to have automated calibration like IMAX but just monitoring and reporting should be doable for a reasonably low cost.

That's the idea behind the LSS-200.

[Lyle Romer]

The first thing that must happen is commercial movie theaters need to be in a position where they have better profit margins, thus an ability to attract employees who are more detail oriented and care more about what they're doing. Anyone making near minimum wage can't really be expected to give a damn, much less stick around in that job for any steady amount of time. Good presentation standards rely largely on humans sweating the small stuff. The theater needs at least one person in the building who is concerned with show quality.

Too many theaters have their equipment running in set it and forget it mode. Managers are buried in paperwork, running around trying to account for how many drink cups were sold versus how many were used that day. From my layperson vantage point it looks like 95% of a theater manager's job is running the concessions side of the business. Then there's all sorts of other operations related to the building (custodial service, security, city/utility issues, etc). What's happening in the auditoriums is way down the list of priorities even though that is supposed to be the main freaking product being sold. The skeleton crew of minimal paid employees, kids mostly, are busy cleaning up after the mess the previous crowd of selfish pigs left in the auditoriums, bathrooms and lobby. Neither the employees or managers are inclined to check the condition of actual show quality on any kind of frequent basis. They're not going to know a stage channel speaker is blown or something else is wrong until a customer finally bothers to tell them about it. That is the main thing that needs to change. It should not be left up to customers to enforce quality control.

I don't expect the average cinema's sound system B-chain to be re-tuned for each movie engagement like they did long ago at the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas. But the A-chain and B-chain needs to at least be inspected on a somewhat frequent basis to make sure everything is properly operational. How frequent? I don't know. Once every 3 months or 6 months? To me it appears most theaters are going years between any service checks. Sheesh, what I'm seeing now at our local AMC 13-plex is visible damage to seats and other fixtures going un-repaired. Never mind someone managing to notice a blown surround speaker.

How do cinemas get into a position where they can afford better staff and afford more attention to details? The movie studios must help by increasing the theatrical release window. There has to be some kind of time penalty to suffer when choosing to skip the cinema and watch a movie on TV at home. That penalty was painful in the 1980's and going well into the 1990's, a wait time which often measured more than a year. And when one was finally able to rent the video it was a VHS tape with shitty image and sound quality. Nearly half the image could be chopped off via pan and scan. Today the wait penalty is minimal and the image on the TV is very similar to that shown in theaters, right down to the letter-boxed image, both in theaters and at home.

Major studios aren't going to increase the theatrical release window or change the kinds of movies they're making until they're hit with a crisis.

The movie studios could help by having some consistent damn standards on things like audio levels for movie trailers versus the feature. Maybe that way the theaters won't see speakers blown so easy. But some of that also comes down to the theater operators for cutting corners by installing under-powered sound systems and cutting corners on projection and sound maintenance. We don't really have anything like THX anymore to establish some kind of performance bar to hit. It's all mystery meat digital.

A good argument could be made for building multiplex sites with fewer auditoriums. Concentrate the finite amount of resources onto fewer screens to make them better.

I think small auditoriums with fewer than 100 seats are a waste of money. There is no marquee value anymore with a multiplex having a ridiculous number of screens (18, 24 or even 30 screens). It ends up being a kind of false advertising if a bunch of those screens are small rooms with small screens and few seats. I can watch a movie on only one screen at a time. So, given the choice between a 12-plex with a bunch of mediocre rooms versus a 4-plex with better rooms I'll choose the 4-plex site. It's common for theaters with 10 or more screens to have one or more movies playing on multiple screens. The only thing playing a movie on 2 or more screens does is encourage procrastinators. There is a serious cost outlay involved for each auditorium, even the tiny ones with less than 100 seats. More screens was supposed to mean more variety. Instead of one movie playing in 2 or 3 modest sizes rooms why not just have one show of it playing in a much bigger room with a more impressive screen?

I wouldn't think it would be too expensive to have automated systems that can monitor the audio and video and report issues like channels not functioning or blown speaker drivers. An automated test pattern image and test tone sequence after each show concludes could be checked by a system and then issues can be reported to the management or responsible technician. I'm sure it gets expensive to have automated calibration like IMAX but just monitoring and reporting should be doable for a reasonably low cost.

[Mike Blakesley]

Heck Disney could easily create a website to take the bookings and generate the billing. Or, they could require a credit card number and not even have to bother with bills. Deluxe sends out the dcps anyway (or the theater could use a Blu-ray).

[James Wyrembelski]

Unless you have direct access to grosses through ComScore, it's kind of difficult to compare ticket sales when you can only look at the seating charts for pre sales. It's also a little unfair to compare one set of shows when the non classics run all day. That will always create some amount of spread.

There's a plex just to my south that is doing some classics through the month of May to celebrate their 30th anniversary. It will be interesting to see how they do (and what titles they can show).

[Marcel Birgelen]

I'm pretty sure that in a metro area, there will always be a market for classic movies to be shown, at least sufficient to sustain a screen or maybe even two. In smaller markets, I've also seen a problem to market classic movies, but what you may see over time is that you'll start to build something like a core following. It's true that it takes time to BUILD an audience.

I'm not so sure that the reason Disney doesn't want to rent out their classics for theatrical viewings is based on their adversity of paperwork. If that's the problem, they could easily find a third party that would willingly be the intermediate for those bookings. For all the requests for classic movies, I guess that about 60 to 70% is part of the "Disney catalogue" and that was even before they acquired 20th Century Fox.

Disney practices the "art" of artificial scarcity. You always desire most, the stuff you just can't get. But once in a while, Disney will stage a big re-release of one of their classics, often tied to a bunch of other merchandise too, the opening of a new ride in one of their theme parks, etc.

[Mike Blakesley]

I get what you mean and I never said there aren't exceptions. But in general the STUDIOS DON'T WANT to clutter up the marketplace with their old movies. That's basically what Disney said when they stopped selling their classics as matinees. They didn't want to dilute the desire to see their new movies. (They were, and still are, idiots with this policy, but that's the way they are. I have a feeling they don't want to bother with doing the paperwork and billing and keeping track of classic bookings.) They probably did those deals you mentioned to entice the chain to commit more screens to some other movie, or as a special promotion cooked up between their marketing department and the chain's... things like that. But they are "special events" and if you do them all the time, they're not special anymore.

There is a town of 130,000 people 90 minutes from us. Several years ago a guy bought a shuttered Carmike venue, fixed it up and reopened it playing a few mainstream, but mostly classic movies for $5 or something like that. He made huge deal out of how he wasn't going to gouge people like the chains do, keeping concession prices low and hoping to attract a lot of families. He was out of business within a few months.

Sad as it is, seeing a classic movie on the big screen is a novelty for people these days. By and large, they want new stuff. Our pandemic-era classics were going gangbusters when we first started running them, but after about 3 or 4 weeks the novelty wore off and the crowds dwindled. Same thing happened with curbside popcorn -- for the first couple of weeks, we were thinking "why are we bothering with movies? Let's just sell popcorn!" But then the newness went away and so did the majority of the sales. We still get the occasional walk-in, but 95% of our popcorn sales are to people who are watching the movie too.

I'm not saying you don't have a great idea. I just think it wouldn't work, or somebody would be doing it.

[Geoff Jones]

You have to keep in mind how the movie biz actually works.

I'm aware, at least somewhat, how the movie biz actually works. And it's mind-boggling to me that cinemas are not currently running Top Gun, Dr. Strange, and the first 5 Jurassic Park movies. Both the exhibitors and the studios are missing out on easy money.

...unless you are an AMC or something like that

Those are the theaters I'm talking about.

Disney won't allow any repertory bookings at all, so you could forget about the first Dr. Strange. Ditto for any Disney-owned classic you might desire to run, which means forget about Star Wars, Indy Jones, Pixar, and anything Fox too.

Raiders of the Lost Ark in Northern Virginia May 22nd on two giant screens.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom showed this past January at Harkins theaters in four states (Last Crusade played a week later)
Star Wars trilogy next Wednesday in PA
Harkins has been running a bunch of MCU titles through their rooftop Midnight Cinema program in Arizona. Deadpool (Fox) played tonight.

We have played occasional classics over the years -- promoted the hell out of them each time. And everyone in this area knows that we have a nice theater with comfortable seats, a masked screen, and good sound, but none of them have done anywhere near the business that a new popular title does.

I am talking about medium-sized markets and larger. I fully recognize that circumstances are different at a single-screen theater in a rural town of 1,647 people. I'm really sad that my communication skills are so lousy that this isn't clear.

[Mike Blakesley]

It's mind-boggling to me that cinemas are not currently running Top Gun, Dr. Strange, and the first 5 Jurassic Park movies

You have to keep in mind how the movie biz actually works. I haven't checked on most of those films, but I would lay you odds that the studio owners would NOT let you play them, unless you are an AMC or something like that and guaranteed them 3000 screens, and sometimes not even then.

We tried to book the original Top Gun when it was a month out from its original release date (before it was pulled) and Paramount would not let us book it because they had given some TV network exclusive rights leading up to the new movie's release.

Disney won't allow any repertory bookings at all, so you could forget about the first Dr. Strange. Ditto for any Disney-owned classic you might desire to run, which means forget about Star Wars, Indy Jones, Pixar, and anything Fox too.

You might have OK luck with Universal and the Jurassic movies, unless they have streamer or TV deals with exclusivity clauses in the works (very likely, or they're saving them for Peacock).

We have played occasional classics over the years -- promoted the hell out of them each time. And everyone in this area knows that we have a nice theater with comfortable seats, a masked screen, and good sound, but none of them have done anywhere near the business that a new popular title does.

[Geoff Jones]

Do keep in mind that those classic showings typically have one showing, or maybe two for the week..

The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that if a one-off showing of a movie from 1976 (that anyone can watch at home whenever they want) can outperform a movie within its release window, then just maybe cinemas should focus on the experience, not the exclusivity of their content.

but free guy had a full slate of shows across likely several auditoriums for the whole week.

Yeah, I was comparing the showing of Carrie with the simultaneous showing of Free Guy on their premium screen. The fact of the matter is that several showings of Free Guy probably sat virtually empty, if not literally empty during that week.

Try to slate a classic for a full week of shows and you're often gonna have a bad time.

I don't believe this, at least not in medium and large markets. I'm not proposing that cinemas should rely on classics alone (though I suspect I will get replies insisting that I am). But I am completely convinced that cinemas (in medium-sized markets and larger) are losing money by not booking more classics showings in better auditoriums.

When classics are shown once in a lousy little auditorium, how many customers don't go because they have a conflict with that one showtime? How many don't go because it's on a small screen barely bigger than their home theater? How many don't go because the smallish auditorium has filled up and there aren't any good seats left? How many don't go because they didn't even know about it?

It's mind-boggling to me that cinemas are not currently running Top Gun, Dr. Strange, and the first 5 Jurassic Park movies. So many fans are re-watching them at home in preparation for the new releases. In some cases, parents are showing them to their kids, who've never seen them before.

...there's a reason it isn't done more often.

I sometimes wonder if the reason is simply that this is how it's always been done.

[Buck Wilson]

Here's a comparison from late last year of Carrie (1976) and Free guy in OKC, a city known for its artsy-fartsy population.

Here's another: Tonight, in the bustling metropolis of Casper, Wyoming (population 60k), at the Studio City @ Mesa + ARQ, the ~7pm showings of 8 different new releases (Bad Guys, Northman, Massive Talent, Fantastic Beasts, Father Stu, Ambulance, Morbius, & Lost City) have currently sold only 4 tickets, in total.

The ~7pm showing of Pride and Prejudice (2008) has also sold 4 tickets. Granted, those numbers will likely change as the 7pm hour draws closer, but there will likely be showtimes of new releases that sit completely empty.

Do keep in mind that those classic showings typically have one showing, or maybe two for the week. So for your first example, sure, the classic sold 26 and free guy sold 15.... but free guy had a full slate of shows across likely several auditoriums for the whole week. Try to slate a classic for a full week of shows and you're often gonna have a bad time.

I don't disagree that they can be a good income supplement, but there's a reason it isn't done more often.