July 13, 2005

What if the reconceptualization of the cinema experience, the multiplex that can expand or contract screen count to accommodate these massive opening weekends, is not only the very best way to maximize opening weekends, but the seed of trouble in terms of attracting older, more moneyed audiences to the multiplex in the first two weekends of big hits.

This, like most theories being spun, has no basis in any deep statistical analysis. It is a notion.

But in the endless discussions this summer about those who are choosing not to go to the theaters for movies as often anymore, there are two recurring themes - money and the quality of the experience.

The money part is a tough thing to approach, since there is the counterbalance of the short window DVD as well as the question of when the cost of movies might have, if it did, jump the shark. Is anything over $10 too much? $9? $8.50? This is not an economic analysis, but an emotional one. At some point, a price seems to high and I truly believe that if there is a real price issue - the sense of cost and value tends to overwhelm reality - it is a matter of quarters.

But the experience is more approachable. Do commercials in America, where we are not used to them, really kneecap the sense of movies being a value? Can ushers keep order in theaters and would that make a major improvement for more demanding moviegoers?

But the thing I am interested now is the idea that the concept of a multiplex showing, say, Star Wars, on 6 or 14 screens for the first weekend, making it possible to get a ticket, but still drawing a thousand or so people each hour… is a significant percentage of the audience just staying away because they don't want to deal with full theaters of younger audience members who are more likely to be rowdy, etc, etc.? This is with the assumption that a good seat with good sight lines and an overall quality experience is being had outside of this element of the experience.

This is above and beyond the group that is happy to wait for the DVD to turn up at Blockbuster.

The big question in the business is - and no one seems to want to write about it yet except for me - is how the studios rethink the entire window of the life of a film. Not only are DVD sales of movies, new and catalog, slumping, but a lot of the whining when "The Slump" talk began was about the massive cost of promoting major DVD titles now… the idea that it was a second marketing campaign that studios would prefer not to spend, thus driving the window even shorter.

Now that a market that so mirrors the theatrical window is the reality of DVD, how does the industry maximize both windows?

That is the real question. Also lurking is the question of further ancillary markets and how they are prices, especially cable and network TV.

No doubt, the in-home market is huge and much of it is still untapped. Now part of it may remain untapped because tapping it would massively cannibalize other markets.

My argument is for more structure, not less.

Theatrical First Run - 8 weeks
Second Run Theatrical (which barely exists now and needs to be rebuilt) - 12 weeks
DVD Sell-Thru only - 4 weeks
DVD Rental & Pay Per View - 12 weeks
Premium Cable - 12 weeks
Free Cable - 24 weeks
Free TV

Of course, these numbers are not inflexible… and to create this structure, there would likely have to be some collusion. The two elements that do not exist (at least in large amounts) now are second run cinema and a period of sell-thru only DVD release.

The point of structure is to encourage choice without breaking down each income opportunity. S the theatrical experience too expensive for you? We want you to make the choice to got a first run cinema a couple of time a year, so while still making money, we can offer you a cheaper theatrical opportunity. If you want to wait for rental DVD, it will be six full months from release.

You are a DVD renter? Well, if you might be a DVD buyer, we'll try to motivate you by making you wait a little longer to rent.

If you're nine months out from the release and you haven't dropped any money on this title, why should you wait any longer to get what you are waiting for on premium cable?

If people are going to make choices based on their sense of the quality of titles and the values therein, offer choice, but don't give up your own options.

Discuss On The Hot Blog

READER OF THE DAY: O MAN! writes: "When The Incredibles came out first and became a huge hit, it was thought that it would be problem for Fantastic Four.

But now the opposite appears true. My kids, aged 6 and 8, wanted to see Fantastic Four because it's the "real people" version of The Incredibles. They weren't that interested in Batman. They have never heard of the comic books.

Having seen the movie, they actually rate F4 as good as The Incredibles. They're now arguing whether Mr Fantastic or Elastigirl is more powerful.

I appreciate that F4 is accessible to kids (despite the undue attention given to Jessica Alba's pleasing if modest cleavage) but isn't too insulting to adult intelligence like say, the Scooby Doo movies were.

This may bode well for Kurt Russell's Sky High and the other upcoming live-action superhero family movie whose title I can't think of at the moment."

And this from FIBS: "So my friend and I saw Bewitched for $3 on Saturday night at the Valley Plaza. First, I am soooooo glad that I didn't any more to see it. Pre-Sleepless in Seattle, I would get this vibe from Nora Ehpron comedies that she was too smart for the room. This one went the other way, completely missing out on making much sense, thus failing to even build its own reality. Then there was the hit and miss performance of Will Farrell and the complete waste of Nicole Kidman who next time she does a comedy, should do one where she doesn't have to adopt a totally different personna. The performance reminds me of Madoona (!) in Who's That Girl. That movie would have had a chance to work if she played it straight, but instead chose to do a weak Judy Holliday that was not her at all. Saving graces for B: Michael Caine and Shirley MacClaine. Doesn't help that HBO's comedy line up is all "show biz insider" now. A straightforward retelling of Bewitched would have worked just fine.

As for the theatre, sad to say that the audience was terribly ill mannered. A lot of talking and cellphones went off twice. My friend complained that he thought the seats needed to be redone, but I think they are just fine, but suffer in comparison to newer theatres. Still, had I paid Arclight or even Grove wekeend prices ($14 and $12.50 respectively) I wouldn't be so glib here!"

 

E-ME.