Why dont certain films especially Irish turn up at certain Cinemas?

losthorizon

I read an article a few weeks ago which was interesting and showed the disparity in the amount of people who go to see big budget films like Irons 3 and "other" films like foreign films, Irish films and art house films.

Its reflected here the film section on Boards by the discussion just on the blockbusters in the main. I think "I'm so excited" got one reply.

The year The artist one the Oscar it never turned up at my local cinema because it was slightly different. Ditto for anything containing loads of dialogue like believe it or not Argo:rolleyes: - hardly Art House.

As for Irish film no chance.


Good Vibrations was in the Irish Top 10 for 1 week and made €71,000.

Earthbound grossed under 6,000 first week and €374 second week.

Other Irish films did about the same.

Pilgrim Hill made around 12,000 in its first week but played in less than 10 screens but not in my cinema.

AS the article I read pointed out in Irish cinema terms the Child is the primary cash cow. Its the main reason I suppose you dont get too many mature adults at the cinema as you did in the past.
Its not very often you see an over 18 film either like Snowtown (which , of course never turned up at my cinema despite its rave reviews).

Mickeroo

With non-blockbuster films its generally down to lack of demand and also the number of prints doing the rounds. Sometimes cinemas outside of the big cities have to wait a few weeks before they can get a print of a film.

mike65

Ultimately distribution and marketing are what makes a film a commercial success, the lack of both pretty much condemns any film regardless of its origins and quality. These days the big companies carpet fire bomb the market robbing oxygen for pretty much everything else. The days when a film would "do the rounds" and pick up the audience as it went are gone. The time a film would take to get from the first run big city centre cinemas to the small suburban/rural cinemas would be longer than a film being released world wide and appearing on DVD these days.

Technocentral

losthorizon wrote: »

I read an article a few weeks ago which was interesting and showed the disparity in the amount of people who go to see big budget films like Irons 3 and "other" films like foreign films, Irish films and art house films.

Its reflected here the film section on Boards by the discussion just on the blockbusters in the main. I think "I'm so excited" got one reply.

The year The artist one the Oscar it never turned up at my local cinema because it was slightly different. Ditto for anything containing loads of dialogue like believe it or not Argo:rolleyes: - hardly Art House.

As for Irish film no chance.


Good Vibrations was in the Irish Top 10 for 1 week and made €71,000.

Earthbound grossed under 6,000 first week and €374 second week.

Other Irish films did about the same.

Pilgrim Hill made around 12,000 in its first week but played in less than 10 screens but not in my cinema.

AS the article I read pointed out in Irish cinema terms the Child is the primary cash cow. Its the main reason I suppose you dont get too many mature adults at the cinema as you did in the past.
Its not very often you see an over 18 film either like Snowtown (which , of course never turned up at my cinema despite its rave reviews).

The same applies for music, the arts in general and newspapers etc, lowbrow, formulaic and generic sells, there is the odd half decent film that gets a cinema showing (in Dublin at least) but the majority are crud, early 90s was the last time that good cinema really got a look in.

Andersonisgod

It is really disappointing when a movie you are looking forward to isn't shown at your local cinema. In Waterford city there is only one big cinema, I had high hopes for "The Place Beyond The Pines" only for Odeon not to pick it up. I remember when "The Wrestler" was released, they didn't pick that up either despite it being in the running for a few Oscars. They didn't pick up "The Master" either.

Just looking at what they are currently showing it is remarkably disappointing. They have completely forgotten about movie fans and seem to solely target teenagers. "Dead Man Down" and "Scary Movie", ridiculous.

On the plus side there is a small theatre in the town that does show some movies that Odeon don't pick up and a good range of foreign films. That being said they don't show films very often, so it's a shame that the dedicated cinema in the town has such a remarkably poor selection of movies.

Antar Bolaeisk

Mickeroo wrote: »

With non-blockbuster films its generally down to lack of demand and also the number of prints doing the rounds. Sometimes cinemas outside of the big cities have to wait a few weeks before they can get a print of a film.

That's not really the case any more with digital distribution, I don't know what it's like in the rest of the country but I don't think there's a cinema left in Donegal that doesn't have at least one digital screen (bar maybe the old cinema in Ballyshannon).

Cinemas are only going to show what puts bums on seats and the way to do that is appeal to the greatest audience through the lowest common denominator. A film like The Master just isn't going to attract the same volume of customers as Action Explodey Flick 27: The Explosioning.

CastorTroy

It's not even that recent. I remember back when Memento came out, I was living in Dublin at the time and the only cinema showing it was Screen on D'Olier Street.

What I find annoying is that even with cinemas having loads of screens these days, they still don't show a lot of fims. Like I know here in Letterkenny some films are only shown as a one off as part of the film club. Even then it could be a long time after it was initially released.

Another film was The Punisher. They had the trailer for it before other movies, had the standees in the lobby. When it finally came out it was so long after the States that it was on dvd over there and when they didn't show it in my local, I just ordered it through cdwow.

Technocentral

CastorTroy wrote: »

It's not even that recent. I remember back when Memento came out, I was living in Dublin at the time and the only cinema showing it was Screen on D'Olier Street.

What I find annoying is that even with cinemas having loads of screens these days, they still don't show a lot of fims. Like I know here in Letterkenny some films are only shown as a one off as part of the film club. Even then it could be a long time after it was initially released.

Another film was The Punisher. They had the trailer for it before other movies, had the standees in the lobby. When it finally came out it was so long after the States that it was on dvd over there and when they didn't show it in my local, I just ordered it through cdwow.

And now because of stupid 3D, a lot of the big films are taking up 2 screens at a time leaving even less choice for discerning cinema goers.

johnny_ultimate

There's so many factors playing in to all this, and we can never ignore the practices of Hollywood, distributors and cinemas themselves (although, in their defense, they are businesses - do you think Iron Man 3 would be playing in multiple screens if it wasn't cost-effective to do so?). But more and more recently I think there's one major party who can never be excused from blame - the audience. A huge majority of the cinema-going population - and I include a lot of more supposedly 'discerning' audiences who are 'discerning' in a very undiscerning way - simply do not support the films and events they'd more than likely love.

TBH, a lot of films even in Dublin struggle to attract an audience - couldn't count the number of special screenings, specialised festivals or just general screenings in the IFI or Lighthouse that have played to near empty houses. And this is for content that surely deserves an audience. And that's the capital, which easily enjoys the biggest audience. At the Galway Film Fleadh last year, I was at two or three films that played to nearly entirely empty houses - with the exception of the popular local productions or high-profile premieres (with the sold-out audience generally bulked up by 'friends of the production') the films struggled to attract an audience at a major, well-publicised festival, and likely one of the few opportunities the local populace have every year to access a range of cinema. Even a 35mm screening of Ringu I attended - a widely popular world cinema production if ever there was one - had less than ten people in attendance.

Am I being cynical? To a certain degree, perhaps - there have been plenty of events where I've been delighted by the audience support (JDIFF, despite its oftentimes mixed quality of programming, is a massive success attendance-wise year after year). And, of course, the apathetic, undemanding attitude of so many audience members is hugely influenced by Hollywood's endless attempts at ensnaring as much attention and screen real estate as possible (as an aside, I'd always love to carry out an experiment where a multiplex did dedicate their screens to content other than blockbusters for a month and see what happens). And yet I think if audiences more proactively supported world, Irish and independent cinema then cinemas would be much more likely to show them. As is, it's not commercially effective to do so, and why non-commercial bodies like Access Cinema are tasked with distributing a range of cinema around the country.

_Kaiser_

Is it because going to the cinema is supposed to be for entertainment?

Hear me out.. I mean that the cinema these days, like so much else is setup as an in and out, easy consumable and just as forgettable experience that sure, you enjoy while you're there but other than that you wouldn't really think twice about it - like McDonalds on the silver screen!

Whereas your slightly deeper, "makes you think" type film is best enjoyed in the comfort of your own home cinema experience away from the overdone marketing, kids and just flashy but shallow experience that is the modern cineplex.

I'm hoping someone knows what I'm talking about

e_e

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Is it because going to the cinema is supposed to be for entertainment?

I could name dozens of foreign/independent films over the past decade that are far more entertaining, stimulating and edifying than their mainstream counterparts.

I can kind of see an implied art/entertainment false dichotomy in your post, it's just not true at all. I can enjoy interesting aesthetics and original ideas just as much as gags and action set pieces.

Also I really disagree that more "serious" films are best watched at home. A big screen and sound system are always key plus you'll never have that same immersion/isolation from the world when watching a film at home.

losthorizon

Also I think its a fallacy that art house films, foreign films or Irish films can't be entertaining or exciting. Of course they can. You do get duds of course but thats through with mainstream films as well.

We all like our blockbusters but its nice to get a mix.

belcampprisoner

cinemas just want blockbusters


more bums on seats

johnny_ultimate

I always think arthouse cinema benefits more from immersion in a cinema environment than watching them at home. I know in my house no matter how well I prepare it's nearly inevitable that there'll be some interruption if I try to sit down and watch a film. If I take something like Tree of Life or Spring Breakers (and how wonderful that that art film in disguise made it into the largest multiplex screens not too long ago ) it's only in a cinema that you can IMO get appropriately overwhelmed by their aesthetics and craft. There's also that great feeling of a communal experience you get when you've watched a truly great film in a good crowd. I remember seeing The Turin Horse last year, and when the lights came up after almost three hours of exhausting, miserable and intense content, there was something wonderful about the very obvious atmosphere that all of us in that small cinema had just gone through the same thing. It's a feeling that's hard to articulate unless you've gone through it yourself I think!

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I always think arthouse cinema benefits more from immersion in a cinema environment than watching them at home. I know in my house no matter how well I prepare it's nearly inevitable that there'll be some interruption if I try to sit down and watch a film. If I take something like Tree of Life or Spring Breakers (and how wonderful that that art film in disguise made it into the largest multiplex screens not too long ago ) it's only in a cinema that you can IMO get appropriately overwhelmed by their aesthetics and craft. There's also that great feeling of a communal experience you get when you've watched a truly great film in a good crowd. I remember seeing The Turin Horse last year, and when the lights came up after almost three hours of exhausting, miserable and intense content, there was something wonderful about the very obvious atmosphere that all of us in that small cinema had just gone through the same thing. It's a feeling that's hard to articulate unless you've gone through it yourself I think!

Agree, something like The Master, which is a chore in places let's be blunt, watching that in a cinema environment you'd feel more obligated to stick with it instead of just turning it off if you got bored or weren't feeling it.

It took me two attempts to watch Holy Motors on netflix, started it kinda late one night and knew I wouldn't last, not that I wasn't enjoying it, I was but there are lots of scenes where there's little dialogue and it was a struggle to stay away watching it in bed, wish I'd caught it in a cinema now but nowhere here showed it.

Technocentral

e_e wrote: »

I could name dozens of foreign/independent films over the past decade that are far more entertaining, stimulating and edifying than their mainstream counterparts.

I can kind of see an implied art/entertainment false dichotomy in your post, it's just not true at all. I can enjoy interesting aesthetics and original ideas just as much as gags and action set pieces.

Also I really disagree that more "serious" films are best watched at home. A big screen and sound system are always key plus you'll never have that same immersion/isolation from the world when watching a film at home.

Its not just that films that are perceived to be arthouse don't get a showing its completely mainstream ones that happen to be in a foreign language too, look at "Mesrine" a really exciting political action thriller and "A Prophet" that got a limited release over here because English speaking people are too lazy or stupid to read subtitles, the same goes with really good films from Sweden or Japan etc that get a small release over here and then are probably remade in English for the mainstream audience who can't bear the thought of experiencing a non American or British outlook on life, sad really, growing up I watched "Return of The Jedi" or "Back To The Future" one week then "Jean De Florette" or 'Betty Blue" the next, there was no discriminating between them to me, they were all great cinema going experiences, also there was no attitude of "I'll wait until its remade in English before I see it". Surely part of the dearth of non 100% English language mainstream films in Cinemas is the success of video games? As this is probably who the film industry and distributers seem to see as there main competition hence the likes of 3D and endless sequels "Fast and Stupid 6" etc ffs.

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

Surely part of the dearth of non 100% English language mainstream films in Cinemas is the success of video games? As this is probably who the film industry and distributers seem to see as there main competition hence the likes of 3D and endless sequels "Fast and Stupid 6" etc ffs.

You're going to have to expand significantly on that one...

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're going to have to expand significantly on that one...

I'm not criticizing games, I'm saying that the film industry is terrified to make and distribute anything that isn't by and large a (well down the line) sequel, high concept and visually flash bang wallop and (probably) 3D to compete with video games and get people into the cinema, there doesn't seem to any risk taking on more subtle and intelligent films, would you not see any merit at all in that line of argument?

Technocentral

Technocentral wrote: »

that got a limited release over here because English speaking people are too lazy or stupid to read subtitles, the same goes with really good films from Sweden or Japan etc that get a small release over here and then are probably remade in English for the mainstream audience who can't bear the thought of experiencing a non American or British outlook on life

I despise it when people use the "audiences are too stupid" line. I find that it generally says more about the person then the wide net of people they are insulting.

The average cinema goer gets a raw deal from the more "seasoned, pretentious" film goer who views themselves as superior to anyone who would buy a ticket to see Battleship or John Carter. The average person is quite open to watching non-English language cinema, the fact that The Raid was such a smash hit kind proves this. As does the success of Meserine, A Prophet. Neither of them made 500 million at the cinema but that may have to do with the fact that marketing and distribution for both was rather poor and that the distributors focused on opening it small in art house screens and not large multiplexes.

I went to see White Elephant a few weeks back and the cinema was packed, this was a 9pm on a Friday night. This is a Spanlish language film that's 2 hours long, yet the audience was full of many of the same faces who I have seen at such genre fare as Olympus Has Fallen and such. I was speaking to one couple after the film was over and asked them why they went to see it, their answer was simple, "they had been at Scary Movie 5 the week before and saw the poster for White Elephant and it looked interesting". So they came back a week later so see it.

Technocentral wrote: »

I'm not criticizing games, I'm saying that the film industry is terrified to make and distribute anything that isn't by and large a (well down the line) sequel, high concept and visually flash bang wallop and (probably) 3D to compete with video games and get people into the cinema, there doesn't seem to any risk taking on more subtle and intelligent films, would you not see any merit at all in that line of argument?

Again you are wrong. Who do you think distributes all the small, indie pictures that win critical acclaim? It's generally the big studios. There is a desperate need for a shake up within the industry but to say that subtle, intelligent films are not being actively pursued by the majors is just wrong. Granted there is an abundance of big budget, lowest common denominator filler being released on a monthly basis but it doesn't take much effort to find something challenging.