# of screens for Frozen vs. # of screens for 12 Years a Slave. Fair or not fair?

[Ando918]

Frozen has made a killing at the box office.  It has also been helped by theaters basically keeping its screen count relatively the same since December.  One would figure that after Frozen hit 300 million domestic, it would lose screens and thus give more opportunities to show lower budget indie movies like 12 Years a Slave, Nebraska, or Her.  These movies have only been showing on about 1,000 screens - limiting their box office potential.  A lot of people live in areas where they can't or don't want to drive the extra 10 miles to see these kinds of movies.

 

Is it perfectly acceptable for Frozen to hog all of the screens throughout the month of January, even though it has already made a killing?  Or is this just greed?  Does the movie industry even care about exposing moviegoers to indie films by showing them on more screens?

Edited January 31, 2014 by Ando918

[ecstasy]

Frozen has made a killing at the box office.  It has also been helped by theaters basically keeping its screen count relatively the same since December.  One would figure that after Frozen hit 300 million domestic, it would lose screens and thus give more opportunities to show lower budget indie movies like 12 Years a Slave, Nebraska, or Her.  These movies have only been showing on about 1,000 screens - limiting their box office potential.  A lot of people live in areas where they can't or don't want to drive the extra 10 miles to see these kinds of movies.

 

Is it perfectly acceptable for Frozen to hog all of the screens throughout the month of January, even though it has already made a killing?  Or is this just greed?  Does the movie industry even care about exposing moviegoers to indie films by showing them on more screens?

 

 

it's supply and demand.  If Frozen wasn't making money it would lose theaters like the all of the others that came and went this holiday season, including The Hobbit DOS.

 

.

 

12 YAS and Her both have had their chance at Expansion. As a matter of fact. I do believe 12 YAS has been re-expanded.

 

In before moved to Speakeasy

Edited January 31, 2014 by ECSTASY

[iceroll]

You're complaining about Frozen when movies like The Nut Job and Jack Ryan have way more screens?  This is like, one of the most obvious instances where $$$ talks in the movie industry.

[Ando918]

Yea I know that it is mostly supply and demand, but it seems like lots of the good indie movies don't get a fair shot at expansion, even if their per screen average is pretty decent.

[AniNate]

Yea I know that it is mostly supply and demand, but it seems like lots of the good indie movies don't get a fair shot at expansion, even if their per screen average is pretty decent.

 

One screen is typically enough to satisfy demand for those kinds of films. People don't go to those on a whim, they make the time to see them.

[iceroll]

Yea I know that it is mostly supply and demand, but it seems like lots of the good indie movies don't get a fair shot at expansion, even if their per screen average is pretty decent.

But you're singling out Frozen when lots of other movies also have larger/larger screencounts and are making less money.  Frozen's longevity means that theater owners are keeping a bigger percentage of the revenue so it makes sense that they would keep it in more screens.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Catching Iceroll

[baumer]

As Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven,"  Deserves got nothing to do with it."

 

Here's the thing, once a film goes deep into its run, theater owners get a much bigger slice of the pie.  So if the movie is still viable and making good money, it's in the best interest of the theater owners to keep it playing.  At the beginning, they only see about 5-10% of the gross.  As the run goes on, they get more and more until later in it's run it is basically 50/50.  That's one reason why Frozen is staying in as many screens as it is.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

It's business, dude.

[spizzer]

But you're singling out Frozen when lots of other movies also have larger/larger screencounts and are making less money.  Frozen's longevity means that theater owners are keeping a bigger percentage of the revenue so it makes sense that they would keep it in more screens.

 

Yes this is key.  Frozen is outperforming  competition AND has been in release longer.  Theater's have more incentive to keep it running because of the way they get revenue splits over anything else currently running. 

[Ando918]

Yeah - I wasn't a business major and am not an expert on the details of the business side of the industry.  I just think it's not really fair that after about 9 weeks of release, and 350 million domestic, that Frozen still has 2,700 screens.  You've already made an astounding profit and kids/families will buy the DVD/merchandise, so it is time to lower its screen count to 2,000.  In contrast, it would have been nice for 12 Years a Slave and Nebraska to have their screen counts raised from 1,000 to 1,700 screens for a month just to give them more of a chance.  It's just my own wishful thinking.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Ando918

[BadAtGender]

As is said above, you're looking at the wrong film to complain about, dude.

 

Films will show based on business agreements between the distributors and the theaters owners. The latter are going to look for films where they can maximize revenue, of which Frozen is going to pay out a hell of a lot better than any new release. (I think a new release would have to at least do 4x a weekend gross in order to get a theater more at this point? Ride Along might have done it over OW, but that's probably the only release that's done it in a while.)

 

If 12years isn't getting enough theaters, that's on the distributor for not convincing enough theater owners that they can earn more with it than with something else. Given the subject matter of the film, it's a heavy, hard sell, so it's not that surprising. Even so, you'd think they could have stolen some of the opening screens from the likes of I, Frankenstein, right?

[baumer]

Yeah - I wasn't a business major and am not an expert on the details of the business side of the industry.  I just think it's not really fair that after about 9 weeks of release, and 350 million domestic, that Frozen still has 2,700 screens.  You've already made an astounding profit and kids/families will buy the DVD/merchandise, so it is time to lower its screen count to 2,000.  In contrast, it would have been nice for 12 Years a Slave and Nebraska to have their screen counts raised from 1,000 to 1,700 screens for a month just to give them more of a chance.  It's just my own wishful thinking.

 

Theater owners are not charities.  They are there to make money.  And Hollywood is not anything close to a charity.  12YAS and Nebraska might see a slight uptick in sales, a very slight uptick if it had more screens.  But Frozen is making money for the theaters and the studio, it's not about to give up screens for something like the films you mentioned.

[Ando918]

Yep, in the battle between commerce and art, commerce is going to win everytime.  The game is already rigged.

[BadAtGender]

Yep, in the battle between commerce and art, commerce is going to win everytime.  The game is already rigged.

 

I think Frozen's pretty well considered as art.

 

The Nut Job? Far less so.

[a2k]

12YAS and Nebreska themselves have strong commercial connections compared to so many genuinely indie films being showcased in festivals and made by really talented people without any pull in hollywood.

 

Of all the "indie" films that get made, the ones with commercial interests get released. The rest, no matter how good, disappear.

 

The business reasons that keep Frozen in theaters for months, are the same reasons why 12YAS and Nebreska will be in theaters for weeks over so many films around the same subject matter made by new-comers, artists without influence, contacts, etc that won't ever be released in theaters or even on dvd irrespective of quality.

Edited January 31, 2014 by a2knet

[Ando918]

I think Frozen's pretty well considered as art.

 

The Nut Job? Far less so.

You seem like a bright person, so I am just curious....why did you put Man of Steel in your top 5 of 2013?  Did you only see 5 movies?

[AniNate]

Ando918, on 31 Jan 2014 - 6:34 PM, said:Yep, in the battle between commerce and art, commerce is going to win everytime.  The game is already rigged.

 

It's highly unlikely the majority of Frozen's audience would (or should, tbh) just as soon pick 12 Years a Slave or Nebraska as their entertainment of choice. There's no "game" here. Frozen just appeals to a bigger audience than those other films.

Edited February 1, 2014 by tribefan695

[BadAtGender]

You seem like a bright person, so I am just curious....why did you put Man of Steel in your top 5 of 2013?  Did you only see 5 movies?

 

If my accounting is correct, I saw about 23 or 24 movies that were released in 2013.

 

And while Man of Steel has flaws, there are a lot of things that I like a lot about it. I put it in the top 5 because some things really resonated with me. I tend to appreciate films that are daring in some way and try to do interesting things, even if they don't always succeed in those things. Ambitious but flawed will probably top conservative but stable in my book.

 

I mean, Frozen's my #1 film of the year, and I think it has some problems. The lack of prominent non-white people is a big one, and it could have easily been averted.

 

Suffice to say, there are no perfect films. When you get down to it, I'm going to respond to a film emotionally, and the ones that garner a stronger emotional response are going to be the ones I regard better.

[AniNate]

 

I mean, Frozen's my #1 film of the year, and I think it has some problems. The lack of prominent non-white people is a big one, and it could have easily been averted.

 

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but that seems like a highly unfair expectation to put on a film set in Scandinavia.

[Ando918]

One screen is typically enough to satisfy demand for those kinds of films. People don't go to those on a whim, they make the time to see them.

Here's the main problem: When the movie industry chooses to make Transformers part 7 or Grown Ups part 5, they are essentially telling us (the audience) that those are the kinds of movies we as the audience want to see.  It is kind of like how when a parent feeds a young child, they can choose to feed the kid McDonald's everyday or they can choose to feed the kid fruits and vegetables.  Either way, the child is going to eat.  And either way, people are going to go to the movies and buy tickets for what is showing.  If the movie industry stopped making 75% of its commercial films be escapism aimed at kids/teenagers, people would still come out to the movies to see intelligent movies or those that are based on true stories.  I do not believe that a movie like 12 Years a Slave or Captain Phillips has a "limited audience" because of its subject matter.  I believe that the industry does not give those movies a chance to succeed, thus they rarely succeed.  (Captain Phillips was a hit, and it was given a lot more screens than 12 Years a Slave).  The industry underestimates the intelligence of the typical moviegoer, and feeds them McDonald's most of the time.