Release date's

Xcom2

Why do studio's not realise that releasing a film in America two month's before Europe does untold harm to their profit's.

Sin City is one example,
US release date 1/04/2005
UK/Ireland release date 3/06/2005

By the time it get's released here I will have already seen a bootleg of it.If the film is great I may go to the cinema to watch it again but more than likely I won't.

I may wait till the DVD is released but I won't buy it straight away,I will wait for a few month's and pick it up for a bargain price.

I am by no mean's alone in doing this as most of the people I know are the same.The movie companies could solve this tomorrow if they were willing to spend a few dollar's.

X

herobear

the problem herein lies within budgetary reasons, the more prints you make of a film the more screens it can show on at once, but the more expensive it is....and many films just dont have the budget for it.
thats why alot of Directors and Studios are pushing for digital projectors to be used widespread, they're expensive but it eliminates the need for physical prints of the film, the projector can stream movies straight through sourced from the u.s. and elsewhere, thus eliminating the huge gaps in release dates

Kevin_rc_ie

I'd love to see international releases on all films. i think it is purely economical. It's a risky business releasing films. So, you go to the trouble of marketing and all that rubbish for a film, and it flops, you have the expense of international marketing. but if you just do if for the Us, and it flops, u can decide not to release it internaitonally, or change strategy.

so digital film may not fix this problem.

Xcom2

With a film that everyone know's will be a blockbuster there is no reason not to release it everywhere as anything else just pander's to the pirate's.But even for moderatly interesting film's if you don't release it everywhere at the same time most people have had time to read the review's and see that it's a steaming pile of ****e and don't go.

X

mycroft

herobear wrote:

the problem herein lies within budgetary reasons, the more prints you make of a film the more screens it can show on at once, but the more expensive it is....and many films just dont have the budget for it.
thats why alot of Directors and Studios are pushing for digital projectors to be used widespread, they're expensive but it eliminates the need for physical prints of the film, the projector can stream movies straight through sourced from the u.s. and elsewhere, thus eliminating the huge gaps in release dates

It's not just print cost. If you do a european version you need to do a whole new set of prints, because hey either subtitles need to be added, and also most major chains don't want a second hand print for their screens.

It's risk pure and simple, if it bombs in the US a studio may try and re think the marketing stratgey, or alternatively dump the european release.

Conside independence day, the first film to truly get an worldwide release. Why? the test audience didn't just like it, they chanted "SHOW IT AGAIN", the studio knew they were onto a winner and timing the release, they made the release an international event.

So for a studio that has a film that might be an international success, they're a lil wary. It's not like everywhere is going to be a huge opening weekend the same weekend (like irish n british mid terms, theres always a dirth of releases of kids films that week.

In short the studio could spend 40 million on the P&A of a us film, and $80 million on the release of an international film. If it's a flop then it's just $40m on the US release, if it's a flop and an international release, then thats $40m extra.

You fancy walking into work on monday morning, and facing your boss, and telling him the film that bombed didn't just lose him $120m it lost him $160m. Theres a meeting I dont want to be a fly on the wall for.

mycroft

Xcom2 wrote:

With a film that everyone know's will be a blockbuster there is no reason not to release it everywhere as anything else just pander's to the pirate's.But even for moderatly interesting film's if you don't release it everywhere at the same time most people have had time to read the review's and see that it's a steaming pile of ****e and don't go.

X

and thats the point, there are no dead certs in cinema. Pearl Habour anyone? Waterworld? There is every year a stinker that everyone thinks will rock, and dies a death. There is nothing in cinema that is a death cert. Literally there is no such thing as a dead cert every release is a gamble. Any book on film will tell you the same

aidan_walsh

I'm pretty sure they're not going to miss your €7 all that much in the end :rolleyes:

While there may be a number of people who prefer to watch a crummy rip rather than wait for the cinema release, there is still a much larger number of people who will still pay to see it. Cinema has been as badly hit by you as it was by television.

ixoy

mycroft wrote:

It's not just print cost. If you do a european version you need to do a whole new set of prints, because hey either subtitles need to be added, and also most major chains don't want a second hand print for their screens.

Any idea on how often we get second-hand prints? For instance, wasn't "House of Flying Daggers" an old print set left over from the UK once they had shown it (which is why we didn't get it at the same time)?

So for a studio that has a film that might be an international success, they're a lil wary. It's not like everywhere is going to be a huge opening weekend the same weekend (like irish n british mid terms, theres always a dirth of releases of kids films that week.

Aye, look at all the kids movies this weekend - 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie', 'Robots', and 'Laura's Star'.

Still there's certain movies that have a franchise name built up on them that almost guarantees they'll be successful - e.g. a new Star Wars movie. Yet despite that we still had to wait for say 'The Phantom Meance'. I was quite surprised to see 'Hostage' released on the same date as in the US because it had had little attention beforehand and wasn't exactly a big force (Willis isn't a huge draw and the movie didn't set the US box office alight).

Is there any reason they'll sometimes only wait a week, such as with 'Batman Begins'? Oddly enough, IMDB has the French release before the UK release so it can't be a subtitling issue. Or is it that movie prints take time to do and they'll be doing it at the last minute? After all a movie like 'Batman Begins' benefits from a lot of pre-hype already and being an established name...

mycroft

ixoy wrote:

Any idea on how often we get second-hand prints? For instance, wasn't "House of Flying Daggers" an old print set left over from the UK once they had shown it (which is why we didn't get it at the same time)?

Economys of scale. The print that made it to the IFI, had probably been the one from the BFI or another UK regional arthouse cinema there. The company aren't going to do a huge advertising blitz, they're relying on reviews, and word of mouth. And the film does the rounds, once it's finished it's run in dublin it'll be down the kino in cork. The company make the exact same amount of money from one print seen the the same number of people, then five prints, which are seen by the same number of people at the same time.

Is there any reason they'll sometimes only wait a week, such as with 'Batman Begins'? Oddly enough, IMDB has the French release before the UK release so it can't be a subtitling issue. Or is it that movie prints take time to do and they'll be doing it at the last minute? After all a movie like 'Batman Begins' benefits from a lot of pre-hype already and being an established name...

I'd hazard a guess and say simply means of production. There are few companies that can handle printing up 2,000 prints of a film, and on an effects film with a release date set in stone, the cutting room/sound mixers/visual effects guys are working right up to the last minute. The sound editors on Armageddon lived in a trailer cross the street from the mixing house, working in shifts to get it ready.

So the lab may not be large enough to accomadate striking 3,000 prints, but instead gets 2,000 prints, the breathing space of a week gives you chance to get your stars and directors over to europe to do the european press, theres only so many interviews christan bale can give in a week, and giving them that extra week, gives him extra time to smooze the foreign press corps. And get the prints struck.

Thats just an educated guess mind.

Xcom2

OK So move everything to digital?

The studio Fox for example send me the movie the day before the release date and I send it to my cinema's across the country.It has already been dubbed or subtitled into the local language.

The whole process would add on at the most 3 week's to the US release date.It would also kill piracy!

X

mycroft

Xcom2 wrote:

OK So move everything to digital?

The studio Fox for example send me the movie the day before the release date and I send it to my cinema's across the country.It has already been dubbed or subtitled into the local language.

The whole process would add on at the most 3 week's to the US release date.It would also kill piracy!

X

The revamping of every cinema to digital, and removing release prints, would cost 100s of millons, cost thousands of people their jobs and years to impliment fully.

It will happen and it will be a slow process. And it will be a death blow to a certain of artistry.