Shindler's Site: Splitting: The Differences

In the beginning, all LF theaters were alike, or so it seemed to most casual observers. Fabulous images, great sound, stadium seating, and a documentary film were the basic ingredients. Slowly the concept caught on. As more theaters were built, people everywhere could enjoy the experience that had originally been available only at world’s fairs, famous destinations, theme parks, and, of course, museums.

In the mid 1990s LF theaters were introduced to the commercial theater environment. Most did well in their first year of operation, largely because of the novelty of 3D. But in time, without a constant flow of product targeted specifically at multiplex patrons, attendance declined.

The demand for product in this environment is unforgiving. One need only look at the hundreds of Hollywood films released each year and the pressure for weekly box office results to understand this concept. The process is unrelenting. Commercial theaters rarely close: Christmas day and other holidays are prime moviegoing days. The public is ravenous for new films.

In the early days of the commercial LF growth, it was hard to tell the difference between institutional and commercial theaters on basis of their schedules. It was "same product, different venue." But this is less true today. The number of films intended primarily for commercial theaters, and with little or no institutional appeal, is growing, but is still far from being robust enough for their needs.

The fact is that the two types of theaters, institutional and commercial have different motivations and missions. And they are separating more each day. Not that one concept is right and the other is wrong; each has its place in the business.

A review I recently made of commercial LF theater Web sites bears this out. These theaters are playing a mix of traditional LF fare, commercial LF titles such as Ultimate X, and conventional 35mm films. Many of latter use 35mm prints specially enhanced to improve brightness and clarity when projected to the greater size of the giant screen. I have found these presentations impressive, particularly because of the superior sound systems of LF theaters.

Looking ahead, the number of commercial LF films in the pipeline is growing, and includes several repurposed 35mm titles. But it is not clear that an adequate slate of commercial fare can be sustained. To do so will require a business model that balances the needs of both producers and exhibitors.

Let’s look at some of the forthcoming product.

Apollo 13 was a popular and successful film when it was first released in 1995. The question is whether Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience, opening this month in about 20 theaters, will attract an adequate audience. Having seen the trailer, I think that the film will look great. But without a significant share of the mainstream audience, it may struggle to earn a return on the repurposing and marketing investment.

Treasure Planet is the next Disney animated film to hit the big screen and the giant screen, and the first to do both at once. This will give LF exhibitors the combined benefit of heavy holiday attendance and a major national marketing campaign.

Even though it will be limited to the holiday season, Santa Vs. the Snowman, looks like fun, judging from the trailer and director Steve Oedekerk’s track record (Ace Ventura, Jimmy Neutron). Certainly, more 3D product is welcome in the marketplace. Will this be more successful as a perennial holiday film than its predecessor, The IMAX Nutcracker? Time will tell. (If holiday LF films catch on, perhaps Adam Sandler’s 8 Crazy Nights, billed as a Hanukkah musical and opening next spring, will be repurposed and re-released for late 2003.)

The Lion King, with its wonderful story, music, and animation, is a strong contender. It has instant name recognition and the test footage shown at LFCA looked great. The "circle of life" theme may make it more attractive to the institutional sector than Beauty and the Beast was. But, opening on Christmas day, it will have a lot of competition in the commercial side.

Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey also has a certain amount of name recognition and cachet from the off-Broadway show. The trailer left me wanting to see more. The soundtrack alone may be worth the price of admission. This film could do well with audiences of all ages in commercial and institutional theaters.

Ghosts of the Abyss has the name recognition of James Cameron, the public’s fascination with the Titanic, and the marketing power of Disney behind it. And it’s 3D. Stephen Low’s Voyage Into the Abyss has a natural history theme, 15/70 footage (Cameron used HD video), and a director who is arguably as popular among LF theater bookers as Cameron is with the general public. Although some confusion over the similar titles seems inevitable (unless one is changed), each could dominate its respective segment. I hope both succeed.

I predict that the next year will see a greater divergence between the two segments of the LF industry. It seems clear that institutional LF films will continue to be made, and the market will decide how many commercial LF films are produced, as well as which of them succeed in crossing the divide. The best products have a way of doing that.

Marty Shindler is CEO of The Shindler Perspective, Inc., an organization specializing in providing a business perspective to creative, technology, and emerging companies. Marty may be reached at Marty@iShindler.com.

Copyright 2002 by Cinergetics, LLC. All rights reserved. Used by permission