Movie studios pulling their movies too?

[Mike Blakesley]

“The size of the sound” is the easiest thing to reproduce (or surpass) at home

That's horseshit, unless the average "home theater" (which is basically a TV on the wall in the living room, in most houses) is 3,000 square feet or more. You can match the volume, sure. But the sound field (and the comparatively tiny picture) will still seem like you're watching it on TV. As for your "What grandeur" question, my next sentence after that said exactly what I meant. Naturally a dedicated "Home Theatre" will create a really good experience, but you're still watching TV within your same old four walls. Is this the future? Staying home all the time?

Of course a little shoebox auditorium in a 24-screen plex is not going to give a fantastic experience like a big auditorium would. But what do you expect? Theater chains can't snap their fingers and evolve the industry into having 100% 50-foot screens overnight. The industry is going to evolve -- it's got no choice -- but it can't happen immediately unless you want to see prices go even farther into the stratosphere.

I see so many interviews with cinema executives whining about the shrinking release window. If your whole business model is dependent upon a monopoly, maybe it isn’t a very good model.

Well, I'm not sure what the best alternative would be, besides presenting the movies that the majority of people want to see. If you can figure out a way to get hundreds of people to come to movies they've never heard of, you'd be a rich person.

Where’s the cinema chain advertising every single showing on a 50-foot wide screen?

This will probably happen someday. Each building will have 4 to 8 screens, not dozens. But if people don't go, it won't be successful.

The studios could revive the industry with a single action: Increase the video window and promote it as such. Heck they could even add a percentage point to the film rental and call it "video window promotion fee." I'm not sure what they can do about privacy. Probably nothing. I can't come up with all the answers to fix everything, I'm only one person.

[Geoff Jones]

Our industry stiil offers lots of grandeur. The size of the picture, and especially the size of the sound. But when you don't mind watching a movie on a 5" phone screen, in 30 second bits between text messages, the grandeur doesn't matter. It's not a requirement for people. Who knew?

What grandeur?

For decades, cinema chains have twinned and then demolished most of the grand cinemas. Meanwhile, they built thousands of tiny auditoriums so they could start the latest blockbuster every half hour. They taught moviegoers that convenience is the only thing that matters, and moviegoers got the message. What’s more convenient than watching a movie whenever you want, wherever you want?

“The size of the sound” is the easiest thing to reproduce (or surpass) at home, and at home, you know you’ll have the correct channel coming from each speaker, something you can’t count on at the chains these days.

I see so many interviews with cinema executives whining about the shrinking release window. If your whole business model is dependent upon a monopoly, maybe it isn’t a very good model.

Where’s the cinema chain advertising every single showing on a 50-foot wide screen?

Where’s the cinema chain touting 4K resolution in every auditorium? Where’s the chain that publishes its sound channel configuration? 99% of all showings are mystery meat.

Where’s the chain touting (and enforcing) zero tolerance for disruptions? (Note: if you’ve got waiters scurrying back and forth through the entire movie, you don’t get points for this one.)

When movies get released on streaming with short (or non-existent) windows, cinema chains always seem to put them on their smallest screens (out of spite?). What the actual fuck? Why aren’t those titles on the biggest screens? Why aren’t those theaters saying, “Sure, you can stream it at home on your 80-inch HDTV… or you can come see it on our massive 80-foot screen and be blown away.”

Instead, the vast majority of chains book the exact same title on every single one of their premium screens. If you want to see anything else, you’re stuck watching it in one of those small auditoriums where you’ll be lucky to get the entire picture projected on the screen.


It would be interesting to see what would happen if a theater chain ever decided to actually compete with other chains and home theater. But I don’t have any hope that will ever happen. They’re too dependent on their monopolies.


Caveat: These comments are about the typical experience found at theaters run by the big chains (where most moviegoers see their movies in the U.S.), not the small or indie exhibitors that seem to have their acts together.

[Marcel Birgelen]

These movie business people, whether they work for a major studio or a smaller less-known outfit, are all stuck in the same convention of thinking. It's all we have to rush this to home video where the real money is made ASAP! News flash to those guys: it's not 2002 anymore. The big money glory days of DVD have been over with for more than a decade. Now they're chasing after diminishing returns with all this streaming shit -which is really steaming shit with what it's doing to the industry.

...

The point is the real money to be made now with movies is back in the commercial cinemas. Home video isn't what it used to be at generating revenue.

There have to be people in the industry with decision power that recognize that the REAL money is in commercial exhibition and not in streaming. The only company that seems to make money on streaming right now is Netflix and even they are struggling to balance their books, while most what they produce is forgettable serial drivel that will never see a cinema, most of which barely survives a single season.

Meanwhile, the cinemas are still open for business, but have no material to show their audiences. This is a massive opportunity for anybody that wants to step up their game. Anybody that's wise enough to give movies their proper theatrical runtime, that is and actually wants to deliver what audiences want to see, not some "made by committee" 13-in-a-dozen templated bullshit, but original stories, brought to life on the big screen...

The indie movie industry is hardly anymore creative than the major studios. They all have their own conventions of movie-making, what kinds of stories they want to tell and the style in which they need to be told.

Probably because they're stuck in the same downward spiral the big boys are stuck in. But it's far easier to get out of that state for a small shop than a massive oil-tanker-sized organization like Disney. All other ships may have failed once they have turned their ship around. The time is now.

Advertising is still crucial. But a big ad budget is no guarantee of putting butts into seats. The public may be very aware a certain movie was just released, such as the newest Indiana Jones installment. If the public doesn't find the movie appealing they're not going to show up. The general public has far more entertainment options and other ways to kill time than they had 30 years ago.

Advertising will not be completely irrelevant, but has seldomly been the reason for a failed release in the last few years. The reason why movies didn't make money at the box office is because either they sucked (and this really is the PRIME reason), or the studios botched up the release to such extend that hardly anybody had the time to show up at the theater to actually see it. It's hard for me to grasp that so many indie producers still manage to completely screw over their releases, by relying on some borderline competent distribution companies that can't even manage a global release... I know, because I've regularly have to deal with some of them and they either don't have the reach or simply don't understand that in this day and age, you can't delay the release of the same movie for months on end between "regions" while also dumping it on streaming in some other countries. Your movie will go to shit as it will end up on every pirate site out there and nobody will give a flying f*ck anymore when you actually manage to get the movie into cinemas in their distribution region...

[Bobby Henderson]

Driving 200 miles each way to Dallas is enough of an extravagance. I couldn't swing a plane flight simply to watch a 15/70mm movie. I'm hoping the Cinemark Dallas theater will extend its 15/70mm run of "Oppenheimer" and/or do a repeat engagement of it later this Fall/Holiday season. About the only way I'll be able to see the movie on film anytime soon is by catching a 5/70mm show in OKC or perhaps a better theater in Dallas. I may be driving to Colorado soon for a short vacation, so the two Denver area cinemas showing the movie in 70mm could be an option.

Yeah, it makes no sense to program some movie nobody's ever heard of just for a couple of days and then shove it down into the streaming underworld. But it's entirely up to the studios/producers of those indie movies how they handle their release window.

These movie business people, whether they work for a major studio or a smaller less-known outfit, are all stuck in the same convention of thinking. It's all we have to rush this to home video where the real money is made ASAP! News flash to those guys: it's not 2002 anymore. The big money glory days of DVD have been over with for more than a decade. Now they're chasing after diminishing returns with all this streaming shit -which is really steaming shit with what it's doing to the industry.

Physical disc sales are terrible. Some of that is due to the really shitty efforts studios have been putting into movie disc products for the past several years. Consumer behavior has changed too. Many of us learned our lesson of letting disc cases accumlate and eat up precious space in a home. Even with negative aspects of physical media noted there is even less appeal in "buying" a movie from a vendor like Apple, Amazon, etc. Rumor has it Disney is looking to exit the physical media market completely. They're smoking some special kind of weed if they think they'll earn as much money selling movies virtually as they did via retail. They may not even be looking at the numbers closely on specific movie sales. The big studios all seem to be focused on subscription numbers. I think the traditional cable TV industry is going to see the cord-cutting syndrome worsen for them. But the streaming companies will probably see their fortunes sour too. I think the general public is going to pull back on all this shit.

The point is the real money to be made now with movies is back in the commercial cinemas. Home video isn't what it used to be at generating revenue.

20 or so years ago, when the theatrical release window was more healthy, smaller "indie" movies could have pretty long runs in theaters. In North America a typical movie would start out playing exclusively in a couple or so theaters in NYC, LA and maybe Toronto. The critics would write up their reviews and provide a publicity boost. Then the movie would "platform" out to more cities. As momentum grew the show would expand out into wider release and cover most of the country.

Today those slow, momentum-building kinds of movie release patterns aren't nearly as common anymore. The "indie" movie of today might play at Alamo Drafthouse and debut on Netflix at the same damned time. A month later most people have forgotten about the movie. It's disappeared into the abyss of the Netflix user interface: row after row after row of random stuff.

Also, we're still calling them "Indie movies", that automatically implies movies in genres that not necessarily have a broad appeal. Like mentioned before: nobody is stopping those same producers to make movies armed at a broader audience. The only reason why it wasn't profitable to do so, is because you were releasing those movies in an otherwise overcrowded market. But if the major vendors left the market, there is no good reason why you couldn't also start selling potatoes instead of just specialty imported cheeses.

The indie movie industry is hardly anymore creative than the major studios. They all have their own conventions of movie-making, what kinds of stories they want to tell and the style in which they need to be told.

I'm damn sure that none of the movies that did well in the last year did so, because it had the biggest marketing budget behind it.

Advertising is still crucial. But a big ad budget is no guarantee of putting butts into seats. The public may be very aware a certain movie was just released, such as the newest Indiana Jones installment. If the public doesn't find the movie appealing they're not going to show up. The general public has far more entertainment options and other ways to kill time than they had 30 years ago.

[Lyle Romer]

One thing I'm hoping will happen in the weeks ahead: Universal and theater chains will extend the 15/70mm and 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer (particularly the IMAX film version).

I didn't pre-order tickets for Oppenheimer at Cinemark's 15/70-capable screen in Dallas when I should have -all thanks to a hail storm from hell on June 15 that upended all sorts of plans. I got serious damage to my house and truck. I had to get the claims process fully in motion before making any plans to drive out of town a significant distance to see a movie. By the time I felt safe to order tickets the shows were pretty much sold out thru August 8. Part of the problem is this Dallas IMAX theater's PUNY seating capacity: just 234 seats. Our Lie-MAX theater here in friggin' Lawton has over 550 seats. So it doesn't take much hype for that theater to fill up its limited number of seats. And we have the "Barbenheimer" pop-cultural phenomenon currently underway.

A lot of these theaters playing Oppenheimer in 70mm have had to fly-in experienced projectionists and set them up in hotels. Obviously these guys can't live in hotels for months on end. It's looking like the 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer could be short-lived in many locations. I don't know how long the 15/70mm shows will run, but it's not looking good for anything past mid-August. If the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes continue into the fall the studios and theater chains may need to book those projectionists on one or more trips.

I really don't care about seeing a d-cinema version of Oppenheimer. If there was no film version of it there might be an outside chance I'd drive across my town to see the movie on our local IMAX digital screen. But I might just as likely wait for it to show up on MAX, Netflix or whatever. I'm sure as hell not driving to OKC or Dallas to see a mostly dialog-heavy 3 hour movie. I'd drive to Dallas to see a 15/70mm version though.

Do yourself a favor and don't miss this movie on the big screen. The IMAX 15/70 blew me away but the movie is incredible on its own and doesn't feel like it is 3 hours long. See my review in the review forum. The Autonation IMAX in Ft. Lauderdale has added shows through 8/17 (all sold out through 8/15). If they keep selling out every showing I would imagine they will keep running it. Hopefully the same happens in Dallas (or you can hop on a flight to Ft. Lauderdale).

[Lyle Romer]

The cynic in me wonders if this is part of a "starve them into submission" strategy. As long as the movies go unreleased, the actors and writers don't get their cut of the gross, or any residuals.

Except the carrying cost with current interest rates is very high on the big budget stuff. If interest rates were the same as 2 years ago I would be thinking along the same lines.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I don't care what you call it. I'm 100% correct about indie movies needing marketing help to have any chance attracting audiences at cinemas. Considering the short blip that passes for a theatrical release window I'm more right about this than ever before. There's not enough time in that brief window for word of mouth to be of much help. Movies these days need advance publicity more than ever.

Most members of the general public are not going to make any effort to search out interesting indie type movies. They're going to buy what's familiar. Lawton, OK is not a big movie market. But I've seen quite a few small studio movie releases here and nearly every time I've been almost alone in that auditorium. The indie show would play for a week and get pulled. Hell, this would happen even with movies that had at least some TV advertising.

Yeah, it makes no sense to program some movie nobody's ever heard of just for a couple of days and then shove it down into the streaming underworld. But it's entirely up to the studios/producers of those indie movies how they handle their release window. Like I pointed out: A well-run indie studio will give their movie ample legroom before it will be released on any streaming platform. The only thing that's working against them, may be the false precognition in the general public, that they can watch that movie on some streaming service within a few weeks. Then again, what has been learned can also be unlearned.

Also, we're still calling them "Indie movies", that automatically implies movies in genres that not necessarily have a broad appeal. Like mentioned before: nobody is stopping those same producers to make movies armed at a broader audience. The only reason why it wasn't profitable to do so, is because you were releasing those movies in an otherwise overcrowded market. But if the major vendors left the market, there is no good reason why you couldn't also start selling potatoes instead of just specialty imported cheeses.

Most people aren't pioneers, they simply follow the herd and it only needs a few to lead. People will still go out and watch movies, as long as the movies are good...

I'm damn sure that none of the movies that did well in the last year did so, because it had the biggest marketing budget behind it. Heck, I think that the first online advertisements I've seen all year for a movie are for Indiana Jones, I can't remember seeing any other movie being so publicly advertised the last few years. And is it helping? Apparently not much, as Disney will probably close that movie with a $300M dollar gap.

The big studios have another, huge advantage in the form of free coverage by all the news outlets and social media influencers out there. But when Hollywood stops producing movies, they need something else to report, in there is also the opportunity for independent movie producers to get themselves into the news-cycle.

[Bobby Henderson]

As for marketing budget... Sorry, I really call *mostly* bullshit on that one.

I don't care what you call it. I'm 100% correct about indie movies needing marketing help to have any chance attracting audiences at cinemas. Considering the short blip that passes for a theatrical release window I'm more right about this than ever before. There's not enough time in that brief window for word of mouth to be of much help. Movies these days need advance publicity more than ever.

Most members of the general public are not going to make any effort to search out interesting indie type movies. They're going to buy what's familiar. Lawton, OK is not a big movie market. But I've seen quite a few small studio movie releases here and nearly every time I've been almost alone in that auditorium. The indie show would play for a week and get pulled. Hell, this would happen even with movies that had at least some TV advertising.

To this day I think my experience of watching The Usual Suspects was grimly funny. There was nothing wrong with the movie or its presentation quality. It's just that I watched it pretty much by myself in a decent sized auditorium. Weekend evening show no less. Months later it gets released on home video and locals here start finding out about it: "Wow, that was a great movie! It's too bad Lawton's theaters never get movies like that!"


Today an indie movie is at an even worse disadvantage. In 1995 video rental stores were still going strong. So movies like The Usual Suspects at least had some physical retail visibility on store shelves and poster cases. Today theatrical runs are very brief. And when a movie goes to the "home video platform" (streaming really) it gets dropped into a huge pile with other existing movies to be quickly forgotten in the really shitty user interface of some streaming app. I can easily remember all kinds of movies that were released 20 or 30 years ago because they all had long lasting "brick and mortar" retail visibility. There's a lot of movies released just in the past few years I've forgotten were even released in the first place. We're talking award-winning and/or big budget shows. Streaming is where movies go to die.

[Marcel Birgelen]

In the past, the established movie studios were the de-facto gatekeepers of what productions went to cinemas and what not. They both controlled and owned the distribution companies, they essentially controlled the 35mm chain. When they pushed everybody to digital, they essentially filled their own moat. I can send you a digital download, a hard drive with my movie on it, you can play it.

There is still billions of dollars to be made in theatrical exhibition, you only need to make the movies the audiences actually WANT to see.

All the movies we expected to make money last year, made tons of money for both the exhibitors AND the movie studios. All those pre-programmed failures, you could see coming from lightyears ahead... well, they did not. All this superhero dreck, essentially *everything* Disney pushed out the door last year, Transformers 64, Mission Impossible 128, Indiana Jones and the Dialysis of Density... They came with a big bundle of TNT already wrapped around them, right out of the factory. It only took a little spark to light those bombs.

Independents manage to churn out movies at far lesser overheads than those big boys, yet they STILL can fully use the impact of THE BIG SCREEN. The problem is that independents often focus on non-main-stream genres, because those slots are usually being filled by the Hollywood content machine. With a big void right there, there is NOTHING stopping those independents from creating movies that fill those voids. You really don't need a 250 million dollar budget to make a commercially successful film...

As for marketing budget... Sorry, I really call *mostly* bullshit on that one. Yeah, it certainly has SOME impact, but slowly, everybody is realizing that spending millions upon millions on big marketing campaigns is far less effective than some people want us to believe, mainly those who have ample of advertisement space to sell to sustain their own businesses.

Worth of mouth and a good guerilla marketing strategy like with Sound of Freedom is a perfect example of how movies can be successful even without Hollywood marketing dollars. Modern digital distribution should also be able to do a synchronized GLOBAL release, because that's what's killing most of the independent releases right here... You hear about them, they end up getting played at some film festival, only to be quietly released to a few cinemas in the art-house circuit a full year or so later, when everybody has long forgotten the movie even exists...

Heck, back in the "heydays" me and my buddies went out to the cinema every single week at least once. We often showed up even without knowing what was playing... I've ended up seeing many bad movies that way, but also a few very special ones, that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. I'm pretty sure I enticed quite a lot of people to go see THAT very movie. When we give movies some more leg-time, they also have the opportunity to grow.

A well-run independent studio, should be able to see and anticipate on this and would allow for a reasonable theatrical window, before shoving the movie down into the streaming abyss...

[Leo Enticknap]

Independent movies can do well in big city markets. But they play to mostly empty auditoriums everywhere else. An "indie" movie needs to have some sort of effective marketing campaign in order to put butts in seats. Usually that means spending a lot of money on advertising. In the current case of "Sound of Freedom" that movie got its big marketing push via partisan cable news networks, word of mouth from partisan media personalities and local grass roots efforts in churches and other places. Basically the movie got a hell of a lot of free publicity no other "regular" indie movie would ever receive.

The "faith-based" genre has been gathering steam for a few years now, with production companies such as Pure Flix cropping up to serve it. The game changer with Sound of Freedom is that it is actually a good movie on its own production values and merits - strong script, good performances, more than competent direction, etc. etc. It's really the first faith based film I've seen that anyone might want to go to who is not motivated to be there solely by the belief that Hollywood = Satan, and their desire to protest against that. Every other of these things I've looked at after being recommended them by someone at church have turned out to be amateurish shite, even if I did support the message they were trying to promote. But Sound of Freedom became a political football, because of accusations on one side of the aisle of attempts to suppress it, and on the other that it promotes a discredited conspiracy theory. That having been said, there is no reason why guerilla marketing tactics cannot make other independent movies successful in theaters, too, especially if those theaters are being starved of Hollywood product.

[Mike Blakesley]

Those were the day my friends, we thought they'd never end; then came digital...and they did.

I'd say it was more like "home video" and/or "the internet" ... it was when those two things got in bed together that those days ended. It had nothing to do with how we put movies on the screen.

Our industry stiil offers lots of grandeur. The size of the picture, and especially the size of the sound. But when you don't mind watching a movie on a 5" phone screen, in 30 second bits between text messages, the grandeur doesn't matter. It's not a requirement for people. Who knew?

[Harold Hallikainen]

Marcel, there really is no dearth of great content out there readily available, we ran showing lots of independent gems that no one ever heard of because they were from small independents who were't able to pour a few million in promotion like the big boys. We eeked out a barely sustainable business model with a following of loyal patrons, many of them who would come to see these fine films -- even foreign language imports with subtitles...yipes -- solely on our reputation for finding really compelling titles and our copywriter's expert ability to make them sound interesting.

I think there's something to this reputation thing. When we lived in San Luis Obispo, then Denver, and now Tucson, we found a theater that did a good job selecting movies. Even if we'd never heard of the movie (other than trailers shown at that theater), we'd go see the movie based on the "recommendation" (the fact that they were showing it) of the movie. We've seen some great stuff!

[Bobby Henderson]

One thing I'm hoping will happen in the weeks ahead: Universal and theater chains will extend the 15/70mm and 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer (particularly the IMAX film version).

I didn't pre-order tickets for Oppenheimer at Cinemark's 15/70-capable screen in Dallas when I should have -all thanks to a hail storm from hell on June 15 that upended all sorts of plans. I got serious damage to my house and truck. I had to get the claims process fully in motion before making any plans to drive out of town a significant distance to see a movie. By the time I felt safe to order tickets the shows were pretty much sold out thru August 8. Part of the problem is this Dallas IMAX theater's PUNY seating capacity: just 234 seats. Our Lie-MAX theater here in friggin' Lawton has over 550 seats. So it doesn't take much hype for that theater to fill up its limited number of seats. And we have the "Barbenheimer" pop-cultural phenomenon currently underway.

A lot of these theaters playing Oppenheimer in 70mm have had to fly-in experienced projectionists and set them up in hotels. Obviously these guys can't live in hotels for months on end. It's looking like the 5/70mm runs of Oppenheimer could be short-lived in many locations. I don't know how long the 15/70mm shows will run, but it's not looking good for anything past mid-August. If the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes continue into the fall the studios and theater chains may need to book those projectionists on one or more trips.

I really don't care about seeing a d-cinema version of Oppenheimer. If there was no film version of it there might be an outside chance I'd drive across my town to see the movie on our local IMAX digital screen. But I might just as likely wait for it to show up on MAX, Netflix or whatever. I'm sure as hell not driving to OKC or Dallas to see a mostly dialog-heavy 3 hour movie. I'd drive to Dallas to see a 15/70mm version though.

And that should be a hint to both the movie studios and theaters. If they want to book previously released movies into cinemas that people can already watch on TV they need to present them (if possible) in ways that can't be duplicated at home so easily. At least get more 5/70mm and 15/70mm shows into bigger theaters, even if it means making new prints, training new people and even building new replacement parts for projection systems. It's very clear there is customer demand out there for 70mm film presentations.

I'm not sure what can be done to help the vast majority of theaters that are stuck in the digital-only realm. Probably 95% or more of the general public will choose to watch a specific movie at home if they can play it on their TV screen. That group isn't going to spend extra to see it at a theater. Only a small minority of people will do so. Cinemas can try upgrading equipment, but finances are so tight at most theaters the money just isn't there for any upgrades.

If the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes go on long enough it will indeed hurt the cable/satellite TV companies and streaming services. Cord Cutting has already been a big thing for the past few years. The syndrome could worsen considerably if TV viewers are stuck with even more "reality" shows, game shows and other "unscripted" crap. Live sports is the only reason I still have any pay TV service, and my like for that is hanging by a thread. The music industry could take advantage of this situation if it wasn't a sad, hollow shell of its former self.

On the bright side, this lack of content could get a lot of asses out of chairs and people out of the house. They might get some damned exercise or meet more people in person and improve those social skills.

Now is the time for independent content creators to make yourself heard. If there is going to be another months-long black hole in the exhibition sector, maybe those cinema owners can be motivated to look elsewhere for content to fill their screens with.

Independent movies can do well in big city markets. But they play to mostly empty auditoriums everywhere else. An "indie" movie needs to have some sort of effective marketing campaign in order to put butts in seats. Usually that means spending a lot of money on advertising. In the current case of "Sound of Freedom" that movie got its big marketing push via partisan cable news networks, word of mouth from partisan media personalities and local grass roots efforts in churches and other places. Basically the movie got a hell of a lot of free publicity no other "regular" indie movie would ever receive.

[Frank Angel]

Marcel, there really is no dearth of great content out there readily available, we ran showing lots of independent gems that no one ever heard of because they were from small independents who were't able to pour a few million in promotion like the big boys. We eeked out a barely sustainable business model with a following of loyal patrons, many of them who would come to see these fine films -- even foreign language imports with subtitles...yipes -- solely on our reputation for finding really compelling titles and our copywriter's expert ability to make them sound interesting. But that was before the explosion of streaming services and the ass-to-couch glue those services seemed to engender. If I were 25 today, I certainly wouldn't go into the cinema business.

When I started running films in the 70s -- Brooklyn Center Cinema -- Brooklyn First and Finest Retrospective and Alternative Movie Showplace -- many times we would fill our 2500 seat movie palace. When I booked Fellini's SATYRICON, I got a call from the floor 10 minutes into the first reel telling me not to make the change-over and to turn on the house lights. "Why?" this young kid demanded -- "Because there are dozens of people sitting in the isles. A Fire Marshal says we have to clear them out." Can you imagine? It is a totally different culture around movie-going today. The public perception of Movies today relegates them to the status of what a McDonald's hamburger is to a banquet at Ruth Chris's. It's throw-away fast food entertainment. You are lucky you can get that kind of attendances except for perhaps the biggest blockbuster. And maybe not even then; I went to see AVATAR II -- you know, the one UNDERWATER, a month or so ago in an IMAX theatre no less - a title that is by no means a "small independent release with no publicity." Evidently they knew I was coming and made it a private screening for me and my colleague because on a Friday night at 8pm, the two of us were the ONLY patrons in that theatre. I don't know how the could even afford the electricity to fire up the projectors.

In our culture today, going to The Movies isn't perceived as the special, unique and exceptional entertainment that it was just a few decades ago. I still have the 1-sheet hanging in the booth from those heady days that says: Movies
MOVIES
MOVIES!
Everyone Should Have
One To Look Forward To.

Those were the day my friends, we thought they'd never end; then came digital...and they did.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Now is the time for independent content creators to make yourself heard. If there is going to be another months-long black hole in the exhibition sector, maybe those cinema owners can be motivated to look elsewhere for content to fill their screens with.