Gautske

Not saying Cameron wasn't trying to make money, but I think he also trying to push technology forward and tell an epic story that he had envisioned. TA was constructed with other MCU movies as an epic payoff. All the MCU movies, as has been discussed, assert a ton of control in that they care less about any particular director's vision as much as it conforms to their other movies to further the broader brand. JW had a mess of a script, that obviously didn't hinder it too much, and Treverrow was hand-picked as someone not to run the ship aground. A lot of the big directors are walking away from these tent poles and these more obscure indie directors are often finding their experiences unenjoyable and don't want to return. If there isn't a clear difference between what Cameron is setting out to do than what the studios are, I would hate to see whose artistic version all these forgettable popcorn movies belong to.

Can we agree that out of the top 4 movies, Avatar and Titanic are movies that Cameron poured a ton of energy and effort to tell his story where TA and JW are studio manufactured romps designed for the broadest appeal for the purpose of raking in big $$$?

Vehemently disagree... except maybe TA (I didn't like that either and only went to take my niece and be a good uncle). My then 14 year old niece thought it was alright but complained that she felt the movie was't cool enough to justify not making sense. She said at the time that she thought more superheroes would've made it better because the movie should just be about having as many cool characters do as many cool things as possible while still being funny. I think Titanic and Avatar are better movies than people care to admit these days. Didn't love them, but they engaging and well-made. I remember many people seeing Titanic because they just wanted to see what the most expensive movie and possible next Water World bomb looked like only to come out thinking how impressive the whole thing went down (no pun intended). I got dragged to Avatar by friends expecting an incredibly hokey romp featuring Smurfy cat aliens, and my expectations were way exceeded to find an engaging movie that I didn't think possible from the previews. I won't ever underestimate James Cameron again. That guy really has earned his reputation as a great story-teller/action director, and love him or hate him, expect well-made movies. Now that I think about it about, I saw The Abyss, T2, True Lies, Titanic, and Avatar twice in the theaters (and that probably would've applied to Terminator and Aliens if I were old enough). It's a shame that it increasingly seems like a huge ask for a big budget movie to value coherency/believability/plot (even if cliche and saccharin) over pure spectacle-oriented cash grabs. Perhaps because I was never infatuated with JP, but the whole dinosaur thing just doesn't do it for me. It's probably telling that I remember—as a kid, more eagerly anticipating the other Michael Crichton adaptation released that summer (I did end up liking JP better though). The mere presence of dinosaurs in JW cannot justify what was a financially-brilliant studio move that a nostalgia-fueled, Spielberg imitation — never mind the nonsensical plot developments and character decisions (or frankly, the script) — would be enough to become a cash cow as long as it ended with an epic dino battle. A side anecdote, I told my mother elderly mother the Thursday before Mad Max: Fury Road was to leave our local theater that I was seeing the last matinee, and she asked if she could come along. I told her I didn't think she would enjoy the movie, but she really wanted to come. After I picked her up, she tried to talk me into seeing Love and Mercy instead, but I finally agreed I would see JW with her after MM:FR because she wanted to see what all the neighbors and everyone on TV was talking about. The first thing she said, almost verbatim, after JW ended was,"I never would've thought that Mad Max would be the good movie and the Dinosaur movie the bad one. I mean so much of it made so little sense. Where did that kid get those matches? I guess it really is all about the dinosaurs for some people." To me, that pretty much summed up everything about JW when my mother, who loves JP, thought Mad Max was better, entertaining, and made more sense. TL;DR No, with possibly the exception of TA.

Yeah, definitely Silverado... I just couldn't remember what it was called when I responded. I do hope for Santikos to be the template going forward. Even though I'm sure it depends on the particular theater, I'm having more and more negative experiences at theaters run by AMC/Cinemark/Regal. I don't see nearly as many movies at the BO as I used to, especially since returning to Texas a few years ago, but a lot of the big chains around here don't seem to have improved much (some actually just look more run-down) from 10-15 years ago. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I feel like the push for PLF, 3D, and D-Box (still haven't experienced that), serving food, or whatever else seems geared more to increasing profit margins than improving the experience. Again, I've liked my limited Santikos experiences, but the locations are still quite a bit of a drive for me. I guess I can't complain about the Edwards Marquee IMAX theater, but I've only been there a handful of times. I keep going out of my way to different theaters in the area because I've run into a rash of problems in many of the big chains with theaters being dirty, projector problems, sound problems, open doors/lights left on, increasingly annoying/inconsiderate audiences that management seems more willingly to tolerate, and other nonsense. I guess just an overall sense of dilapidation that many of friends that have stayed in the area pretty much agree has gotten a whole lot worse over the past 10-15 years around here. My closest cinema is actually a newer indie that I'm told was built because the big AMC was falling apart and being swamped by minorities/gangs. Anyway, a long way of saying that as the movie experience is supposed to be getting "better" in many places, it feels much worse. I was going to say I wouldn't mind seeing more 2D films on a premium screen (even IMAX) like you mentioned JW on AVX if it didn't mean limited options due to the inclusion of 3D and other amenities that seem to be there just to charge you more money (assigned seat fees/parking can be counted at some places as well) — all still subject to be ruined by the audience. When I saw JW, it was after the last showing of MMFR at a Cinemark where I took my mother because she wanted to go see JW. MM:FR cost $13 for two tickets for the 12:40 showing, and I unwittingly bought tickets for the most convenient JW that happened to be 3D PLF at like 3:15. Those JW tickets were $30! They didn't even check tickets or anything which would have made it easy to just sneak-in (I had old 3D glasses in my car had I known) or rather just bought four MM:FR tickets ($26 total!). Then we had some twenty-something girls sit almost right in front of us in a fairly empty theater where one was texting incessantly that I felt compelled to complain to management. The girl argued with the usher that she should be allowed to text in the theater, and they still didn't kick her out! To say nothing how I hate 3D (again), but spending $13 for two tickets and having a decent experience (should say that the screen for MM:FR was stained with what looks like a thrown drink) looks like a bargain when compared to $30 for two for a crappy one. Sorry for the rant, but I find these experiences happening way too frequently that if the experiences are not good, no technology is going to help... But I'll post the abbreviated version below because of my . TL;DR Thanks for your reply and refreshing my memory about the theaters. I find the new technology (projectors/screens) really intriguing but find myself caring less because my box office experiences (to say nothing about Hollywood studios and the actual movies) are increasingly negative (see above) because of management/training, audiences, and possible domination of the major exhibitors which at many locations seem more about increasing profit margins and fleecing customers. I definitely feel the increasing tickets/concessions and bad experiences are going to make screen sizes/new laser projectors insignificant when VOD and better/more affordable home theaters systems really start to challenge the checked-out exhibitors. Don't want to be staring at a $25 premium just to ensure a clean, quiet, and well-functioning screening — and 3D still sucks.

I can't remember what/where I was just reading about 3D a few days ago, but it had something to do with the folks at RealD 3D talking up 3D capabilities (best performing movies) and about how much better they are at it now. Particularly, they said they've worked with studios/theaters to make sure 3D showings are now getting the prime slots to drive more business. They've really focused the past year or two on pushing those 3D screenings, I guess. So if you want to blame anyone for that, I guess we can look at the 3D people and the exhibitors. EDIT: I think it was this Variety interview: http://variety.com/2015/film/box-office/3d-the-walk-the-martian-reald-1201538750/

Can't say I've been keeping up with all this technology, but is the LieMax you're referring to the cowboy theater in Tomball? I saw Avatar on that screen while visiting family over the holidays in 2009. Got stuck in a huge queue and ended up getting ushered into a seat right against the wall which made the whole experience suck. I've been to the Palladium twice (maybe three times), and saw Mad Max: Fury Road on an AVX screen (only theater chain in the metro area still giving Mad Max premium theaters at that time). I was a bit underwhelmed by the experience, but it was in 3D and don't think I've enjoyed a movie in 3D since Avatar (not the time in Tomball). I didn't know if their use of the active 3D glasses over the more popular RealD 3D would make a difference. Since then, I saw Jurassic World on the Cinemark XM (?) with RealD 3D, and it turns out I still hate all 3D. Was forced to see IO in 3D at Greenway since then too... I'm struggling to think of a nicer theater than that Palladium though (don't remember the Tomball one that well). Are you familiar with their San Antonio locations? Just curious if the SA locations are as swanky as the Houston theaters. — or at least Palladium. Is the Edwards Marquee the theater by Dave & Busters? I don't think I've seen anything in that IMAX or if its changed or not over the years. Most of my IMAX experiences came from the old IMAX in downtown Houston that shows the educational stuff, and the IMAX in the San Antonio mall. I saw a lot of different things on the "only" IMAX screen in Wisconsin at Star Cinema (an AMC now, I guess), but I'm not sure if that was "true" IMAX or not. My closest large theater is an AMC that isn't run all that well. I really wish Santikos more success because I like what they've been doing since I started paying a lot more attention to all this stuff again this year. I've been caught off-guard by all these chains, and all these personalized PLF screens and other gimmicks. I'm not sure I even knew what PLF stood for until this year. I guess I've been too lenient letting my cinephile friend drag me to River Oaks and Sundance.

This doesn't look like a movie I'll enjoy, but it reminds me how guys like Apatow and Feig have made me feel really ambivalent. I'm tending to to think there are certain people I kind of like when they get censored/edited but am growing to despise as they get more power and creative free reign — meaning I hate their ultimate visions. I feel/felt very similarly about Kevin Smith. Not sure I should be rooting for this to breakout, but I guess we'll just wait and see what it does.

Thanks for your response. I've just found the run really... interesting. I think Universal/Disney could easily have used their summer hits to prop up the fading PP2 and AOU because of the funny math and all. The irony is that my following/curiosity was kind of brought on by obnoxious PP2 fans. I didn't even anticipate liking MM:FR as much as I did and wasn't until a second viewing because I missed so much because of a crazily cranked up sound system (particularly the bass) that I had to complain to management about (and something I have others around the country complain about as well). It wasn't until I recommended the movie to friends who were less than enthusiastic (and said there were no convenient showtimes) that I started paying attention to all the weird anomalies within certain markets and chains. I think I'm particularly aggravated that any theater (especially one with 24 screens) would hold Poltergeist and Beyond the Mask longer than MM:FR — both of which quickly disappeared soon after. I think that the R-rating made people assume Lucy/Prometheus legs, and the JW bite wasn't correctly accounted for. Plus, spillover for the family friendly affairs seems to have led many theaters to schedule more friendly during the day for PG/PG-13 affairs (and other theaters nearby didn't which is odd). I've also noticed chains schedule say a 10:00 am and 4:00 pm at one theater, a Noon and 7:00 pm at another, and then 2:00 pm and 9:00pm at yet a third which makes you think there is definitely some kind of directive or cooperation going on among the local theaters or higher-ups. I digress.... Would love to know what these blanket 12:00pm 5:00pm Saturday showings of 50 Shades of Grey are bringing in. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but independent theaters and smaller chains that I've looked at seem to have screenings/scheduling that make a whole lot more sense then the the big three exhibitors. It makes me wonder what all is being challenged with that anti-trust investigation currently underway. Does anyone know if studios "give up" screens or sacrifice their older releases for the new ones? For example, did WB willingly shed MM:FR and SA (though not for Entourage) theaters for Entourage, Max, MMXXL, and The Gallows? Like would MM:FR's theater count held up if Entourage hadn't released when it did or would that not matter?

I think I'll weigh in with an unpopular opinion as well. Having missed Bridesmaids (didn't sound like my kind of movie), I did manage to see The Heat and part of Tammy within the last couple of weeks, and I didn't find Melissa McCarthy and her act particularly funny. Based on WOM and good reviews, hesitatingly, I decided to see Spy last week anyway. I enjoyed the first (maybe the second as well) Austin Powers movies more than I would care to admit and hoped this might be a similar situation with another spy spoof. Even though I haven't particularly followed/watched most of Paul Feig's work over the last decade or so, I still remember him fondly from what he and Judd Apatow did on Freaks & Geeks. Unfortunately, I think Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy just maybe aren't my thing after this latest outing. I have to say that my instinctive aversion to low-brow, toilet humor (bodily fluids are far more "yuck" than "yuk" for me) raunch comedy should have been heeded. I'm not necessarily put-off by off-color, politically incorrect, foul-mouthed humor, but much like South Park, I find it very hit-or-miss. Contrary to what many defenders of McCarthy accuse many of her detractors having a problem with, her sex and weight matter little to the fact that her act is really just a crude, one-note display of audacity — at least in her last several movies (it's hard not to be reminded that this might be this generation's Roseanne Barr). I applaud Feig for promoting feminist themes and anchoring these features with the untraditional McCarthy, but I can only take so much of this foul-mouthed schtick. For the movie, I was pleasantly surprised to see the opening display a much more toned-down McCarthy playing it far more straight and non-confrontational than the above mentioned movies. Some have showered praise over how she doesn't rely on fat jokes and the like to get laughs, but I still found the humor relying too much on her own self-deprecation and frumpy appearance/mousey demeanor. Contrary to the jovial mood the movie aims for, I felt too much pity for Susan Cooper (McCarthy) early on to know if I would be laughing with her or at her. Luckily (or perhaps not), I found much of it unfunny anyway with jokes/gags that fall flat. As the movie is a spy spoof (I think?), the premise of the movie and hokey opening sequence with the agent, Bradley Fine (Jude Law), can be forgiven, but I didn't feel the ultra-suave 007 vibe exemplified by Law, and I found the scenes between McCarthy and Law just kind of uncomfortable. McCarthy's relationship with fellow CIA desk nerd/agent, Nancy Artingstall (Miranda Hart) perhaps was perhaps a little too heavy but tolerable. I found Jason Statham and his portrayal of agent, Rick Ford, to be one of the few rays of sunshine as he plays a foil to Cooper as a parody of the action roles we've grown accustomed to him assuming. Unfortunately, we don't see enough of him, and when we do, it seems to be a bit random, and he seemingly grows more incompetent as the movie progresses. Still, he's one of the brighter spots. The other notable star in the film is Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrne). She plays the villain, so to speak, with a series of contrived circumstances leading to McCarthy and Byrne sharing a lot of screen time together. By the time this happens though, McCarthy has dispensed with the meek Susan Cooper persona, and is in full foul-mouthed, in-your-face Melissa McCarthy mode that her fans have come to love. Byrne and McCarthy spend most of their time hurling insults and lecherous looks at each other. Great if you're on board, not so much if you're not. In lieu of plot development, we spend more time focusing on spy gadgets that take the form of embarrassing hygiene products, vomit/sexual gags, and silly, cartoonish violence because this is a R-rated spy movie after all. By the time everything gets moving, it's hard to keep track what exactly is going on with this story. Big Bad, Sergio De Luca (Bobby Cannavale), seems almost like an afterthought to the barbs arranged for Byrne and McCarthy, as well as McCarthy and her pervy, Italian contact... guy... played by... someone. Other new characters are introduced and killed off before you realize who they even were, but it doesn't matter because we're just looking for a semi-coherent setup so we can have hilarious hijinks/exchanges between McCarthy and whomever happens to be around. What begins and progresses as a mediocre spy/spoof movie transforms into non-sensical, spy caper with physical comedy, low-brow gags, and burning zingers that compels the audience to completely trade logic for laughter. My audience seemed to be in on the joke as I was trying to figure out who such-and-such was and whether such-and-such was a double or triple agent until I realized I'm investing way more brainpower in a story than even Paul Feig and copany did. I really wanted this movie to be as smart as some champions have suggested. Perhaps it goes down more smoothly if this brand of humor hits your funny bone, but if it doesn't, you're in for an agonizingly long wait as the way-longer-than-it-should-be movie plays out. I wished the film had committed itself to one direction or the other from the get-go. It could be a semi-serious spy parody or just another tawdry vehicle for McCarthy and her co-stars to score cheap laughs. I would have appreciated the former much more, but I would at least be able to check out much earlier in the latter scenario without the extra added aggravation of trying to make sense of this hot mess. I still haven't been able to find anyone who could explain to me what exactly was happening during the final act, but all I've gotten is the kind of Jurassic World equivalent explanation of, "Who cares?! DINOSAURS!" type response. Not to say this movie doesn't have its bright moments here and there, particularly Statham, but I find this movie peaks early and goes downhill relatively quickly. Though, I really blame myself, I let the "certified fresh" rating and two or three reviews bamboozle me into setting aside my recent The Heat and Tammy viewing experiences. Lesson learned. Mr. Feig, lady ghostbusters, forgive me if I sit your next effort out. It's not the estrogen I find repellant, but the thought of seeing Slimer replaced by an apparition that... instead of slime... douses a ghostbuster in... DIARRHEA.... which, ghost poo being disgusting and all, leads to a gratuitous vomit scene and... HILARITY ensues. Um, yeah, no thanks. The fact I can't rule this out, makes this decision rather easy. Spy very generous C-

Thanks for the welcome, Tele. I've agreed with several of your posts in the past, but finally decided to weigh in — and subsequently, let out some of these pent in curiosities in a much longer than intended post. I've asked these questions elsewhere and gotten some conflicting answers and a lot of shrugs. A couple of friends I know that worked in theaters for a long time told me that the managers often don't know what they're doing when lining up screenings and were poorly paid leading to high turn-over in their opinion. I guess I just hope that it looks like people know more about what they're doing than it often seems, but I think that might be a big ask in this industry. I was hoping one of the knowledgable people here would know the specifics because I'm still confused how locations/screens are counted. I know several people that skipped MM:FR and/or other movies because of limited showings that are often at very strange times. Sometimes when I'm at the theater, I'll hop into screenings of newer movies just to gauge the audience, and many times, many of those screenings are fairly empty. I guess I just pine for the days when the local theaters with 6-8 screens had 6-8 movies. Now many theaters have 24 screens and not many more movies.

First post here... and a bit of a multi-part question and really directed at multiple people. Quoted you, gb0708, because your interest in the Terminator BO reminds me of my renewed on-and-off interest in (casually, relatively speaking) following BO receipts over the past 15+ years. For me, MM:FR brought me back to the numbers and the ensuing analysis/prediction of the movie and the rest of the BO. With that, over the past six weeks or so of reading threads, I'm still a bit dumbfounded about how this all works. That said... Gopher/RTH (or whomever), I assume you guys have access to regional market numbers (I've seen RTH list engagements)? Does that include per screening numbers (as well as showtimes) from any given individual theaters? I ask because so many numbers are given in large gross numbers and a lot of predictions/percentages seem to be predicated on percentage changes that can become distorted from breakouts/holidays/flukes. Success seems much more determined on opening big and staying big (thus holding onto locations) much more than movies traditionally did in the 80s, 90s, and even into the 2000s. Therefore, many slow-starting blockbusters from the past would never survive a lackluster reception in this era. I guess I'm wondering if distributors/exhibitors are too busy chasing immediate gratification that they quickly knee-cap what might have been a traditional "leggy" movie for front-loaded horror movies/big OW blockbusters with the big returns up front and unnecessarily cripple the more modest movies that would ultimately bring in a lot more money? How much are location holds determined individually by exhibitor/distributor/local theater manager based on performance at particular locations versus analysis of these broader gross numbers? We, the public, can get per theater average through BOM and other sites, but that does not account for per screening average. I've just been really perplexed following two markets I'm most familiar with (Chicago and Houston) and the variation (or consistency) among particular chains or how one theater (even from the same chain) will split times or movies vastly different than a theater 10-15 miles away. For example, on June 13th (Saturday), my local AMC (twenty something screens) had 43 showings of JW, like 17 showings of Insidious: Chapter 3, 15 showings of PP2, 5 showings of Beyond the Mask, two showings of Home, a matinee of Paddington, and some other weird choices. Mad Max: Fury Road, on the other hand, had screenings at 7:40 PM and Midnight. Other theaters in the area had more balanced showings of the current releases or really bizarre selections themselves. But the question is, does the location average for PP2 lump in those 15 screenings for PP2 against the 2 screenings for MM:FR for the location average? Interestingly enough, Poltergeist had a longer hold there than MM:FR, and of this week, MM:FR (using that because I paid the most attention to it) is not playing in the Houston metro area but is still playing in Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Lufkin among others. Is it suggestive that Houston was a very weak market for the movie or was that self-fulfilling based on theater managers in many local theaters giving it few screenings anticipating low demand for sci-fi/action (plus R rating) and dragging down per location averages that in effect, made the Houston market appear underwhelming (seems Regal/Santikos were still bullish on Mad Max — Cinemark and [most] AMC much less so)? I know on weekends (at least until recently), AMC is still pushing out 50 Shades and Paul Blart 2 on Saturdays in both Chicago and Houston. I found the MM:FR per location averages interesting over the many weeks because relative to the number of theaters, its averages have been far better than movies in similar circumstances which would make me think it would lose locations at a lesser clip than other movies. To take AOU, MM:FR performed better two weeks in a row but still lost more locations relative to AOU each of those weeks per location average. There were others as well that have now dropped off (and now San Andreas’ averages are falling steeply) which means either MM:FR is/was underperforming at those locations, or it must be seriously over performing in others. The other explanation is that locations dropped MM:FR because of commitments to other movies anticipating MM:FR would decline much more steeply. Is this what happened when JW cut the legs out of the competition by taking audience from MM:FR and other action movies (MM:FR wasn’t able to capitalize on spillover as much by adults due to lack of screenings by that time)? Universal could then capitalize by propping up the numbers of PP2 that weekend leading to a massive hemorrhage for MM:FR as more locations assumed it was finished while PP2 would hold longer? Did Disney use IO as leverage to prop up AOU in this manner as well? I guess I’m just confused how exactly the decisions get made, and if they are getting made efficiently taking into account rebounds/drops on a local market basis or by looking at the broader percentage numbers? Bringing it to this week, should we expect MMXXL to hold locations much better going forward with an interpretation that it has legs contrary to the first movie, or will industry people view MMXXL percentage drops as being more attributable to poor release scheduling with an expectation of returning to more anticipated declines? In the latter case, if MMXXL has legs, shedding a lot of locations will just be handicapping its legs and more-or-less wedging its ultimate numbers where they feel they belong? I just wonder if a movie like MMXXL is underperforming/overperforming in certain markets as well. For Minions, JW, IO, I guess, as it is with this era, that people are often forced to see only what the theaters give us. As anecdotal as it is, I know so many people that want to see movies they “missed” in their opening weeks (and are too lazy/inconvenient to travel to theaters further away) that get funneled (or peer-pressured) into the longer-lasting blockbusters more because of a desire to go to the movies than a real desire to see that particular movie. TL;DR Sorry, I didn’t intend to write so much. Gopher/RTH/BO people, how much do per screening averages factor into per location averages? Using MM:FR as a recent case study above, how do location averages and local markets factor into holds versus broad examination of the gross numbers/percentage changes? Is everything just more (at least at the major studios) about instant front-loading profit (necessary to recoup marketing/establishing instant franchises?) often times leading to premature/crippling runs for movies that would historically been more profitable on their current projections? Are there just too many situations now where decision-makers are forced into making commitments to movies based on skewed numbers/anticipated performance only to realize rather quickly how incorrect they were (like IMAX commitments for Tomorrowland and T:G) but in an intractable situation? Just really bewildered following BO receipts again after really not doing so much for several years. Thanks.