“Limited release is a term in the American motion picture industry for a motion picture that is playing in a select few theaters across the country (typically in cities such as New York and Los Angeles).
A limited release is often used to gauge the appeal of an independent film – especially of documentaries and art films. A common practice by major film studios is to give highly anticipated and critically-acclaimed films a limited release in December in New York and Los Angeles in order to qualify them for an Academy Award nomination, as set out by the rules outlined by the Academy. These films would often receive a wider release later in January or February.” (Source: Wikipedia)
I hate to say it but I have a serious problem with movie studios. I can acknowledge the use of releasing a small low budget film on a very limited scale to gauge the response in order to see if it should be given a wide release. I do not accept giving limited releases to movies that they know will get a wide release. In my mind all this encourages is movie piracy. If a movie is available in Toronto, Los Angeles and New York and I do not know when it will be released in my city I would be tempted to see if I can find that movie by other means. I would still pick it up on DVD if it is good once it is released but until that point I would be very tempted to watch it illegally.
I live in a fair sized city. Saskatoon has approximately 200,000 people currently living here. As an example, I am sure that if they released Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (Our Review) there would be a large enough audience to justify its release here. There are only three cases where in my mind I can justify a limited release: 1) Releasing a movie for press only is completely valid. This is how movies get early reviews; 2) Showing the movie at a film festival. Film festivals are a special case and I can fully appreciate that; and 3) Releasing small low budget films on a limited scale in order to gauge if they will make or loose money when released fully.
I am not saying that I believe in movie piracy or anything but it sure makes it hard to wait for a movie when everyone I know has already seen it.
We are spoiled here in Toronto when it comes to movies with that comes a certain sense of entitlement that every film should open in this market early (yea, it’s a wrong feeling, but it just is). Case in point with Southland Tales which still has not opened up here.
But I think you may have missed one point. A Platform release (heck before JAWS, all films were released like this) is designed to build word of mouth in the various outlets and media that the distributor does not have to pay for. I think many films like Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead do not have the budget for TV, Radio, Billboards, so they hope the film gets some sort of wider traction and then maybe spread the film to Peoria and Boise.
You are probably right on the Download stuff (This was Mark Cuban’s argument for Day-And-Date release (ie. theatrical and DVD simultaneously) on smaller films. That way at least someone out in the boondocks can order the film from Amazon or their local DVD retailer.
Instead of highlighting Before The Devil Knows I should have mentioned There Will Be Blood. I’ve seen lots of advertising for it at the theatres. Before The Devil Knows really could fit into the third case I guess.
I should also point out I don’t watch TV with commercials in and I don’t listen to the radio, nor do I read the news paper. Perhaps I would have a bit different opinion then but for me personally I get all my information off the web.
I guess it also comes down to the fact that I pay attention to what is coming out. The majority of the population do not. If I didn’t know that Andrew had already seen both movies I mentioned now then it wouldn’t bother me.
I could give you a list of movies that I had to watch on DVD simply because they were never released here in the theatre or they ended up at the art house theatre right around the same time that the DVD came out.
Perhaps I’m just being bitter but I really would like things to change somehow.
And you’re not alone. Even Vancouver, which has a significantly larger population than Saskatoon, often misses out on some of the smaller releases. One of the major problems around here though, is the lack of independently owned and operated theaters. In a city of 2 million plus, there are all of 9 indie theaters, most within the downtown core and 3 of those play blockbuster openings and/or recently released big budget flicks. Not exactly a lot of selection.
But I certainly think you have a point. The fact that we’re well aware of what’s coming and when makes these omissions that much more apparent but the average viewer, they probably only notice one or two of them.
On a slightly related note, I’ve got to mention that the local (and only) American theater chain in Vancouver, Cinemark, is hands down the best theater in town. Their mix of blockbusters and indies is fabulous and they’re always playing something that’s worth watching. Who ever manages that particular location is doing an AMAZING job. Kudos!
Thats it, I’ve decided I’m no longer going to pay attention to movies. I’ll just go to what comes out and not think about it any more.
I know I have bitched to Marina about the large chains on many occasion. The theatre closest to were I live is a 20- plex. I find it gauling that on occasion there are only 8 movies playing at that movie plex. that means there are a lot of the movies that have multiple screens. Yet, most of those theatres are half full or even close to empty. What about putting the “big movies” into the biggest theatre and running the smaller releases in the 200 seat theatre. I live around an hour from Vancouver, and would love not to have to cummute that far to see something half descent. They could have easily played black sheep!
The AMC chain has a couple theatres outside of Toronto in the ‘Burbs. I’m usually quite impressed that they devote 2 of these screens to Bollywood films and 2-3 of them to smaller art-house flicks. So, Kudos for AMC allowing me to see Paul Cox’s Innocence, Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Dreamers and Gabriele Salvatores’ I’m Not Scared in a multiplex!
One of the Matts from a Toronto-area cinecast I listen to (Mamo) posed an interesting concept for film distribution. In cities like Toronto where there is a high demand for cinema, you open one or two classic theaters, the kind of one screen amphitheatres with the baclonies
that are being demolished lately, and in order to keep them operating you raise the price of admission to almost film festival level. The films are carefully selected according to the sort of hype-generated films that would appeal to the film snob and they premiere in these theaters a week ahead of everyone else.
Buzz is generated, the people that would pay extra (i.e. genuine film buffs) are separated from the blathering masses, and there is a return of the event of cinema-going. In Toronto, Cinematheque occassionally does this, but I think you could have at least one theater that made its entire business from opening films a week ahead at higher prices.
Rot – I think that’s a noble idea but I’m not convinced that it would work. I’m already pretty upset about the fact that I regularly have to shell out $11 bucks for a movie and to be honest, I’m not sure I’m willing to pay more than that – unless you give me something extra like a Q&A (“Helvetica” did that) or food (The Ridge’s long running Sunday Cinema which offers free breakfast for your $15 ticket).
If the prices are film festival style, I’m all up for it since a ticket at VIFF costs me less than a full ticket price admission to one of the big cineplexes.
I will admit that if it was the right movie, I could be convinced to see it but I’m not sure this would fly on a regular basis – at least not for me.
Great post. I should mention, There Will Be Blood was an early press screening for critics only. So that one falls into your first category.
Otherwise, I feel your pain buddy. I bitch a lot about Minneapolis not getting releases along with the big three cities (JUNO!). Truth is though, we do pretty well. I saw Southland Tales 3 weeks ago now and it’s still not in Toronto.
But yeah, I totally agree movies should be released everywhere at the same time. Although Kurt makes a great point in that first comment above. Sometimes smaller, low-budget films just can’t afford that (or the studios aren’t willing to take the risk) until there is some word of mouth out there.
I also agree with Colleeny and Marina that it has a lt to do with the theaters in your district. If it’s all multiplexes and no indie theaters, then good luck finding the “good” movies. We have three Landmark chain theaters and a couple of other REALLY independent theaters in the area as well. They understand cinema and really try hard to get the good stuff. REGAL and AMC just want the blockbusters so they can fill the seats.
- – -
AMC. Hey Kurt, AMC has a select few theaters that they call “AMC Select.” The ones that are designated as such play a few “off the beaten path” films (examples: http://www.amctheatres.com/amctheatres/user-controller/select). Not all their theaters do this, but maybe (I’m guesing here) 10%-20% of them do. At least this is how it is in the states’ version of AMC.
Marina – I would pay extra for the quality of the experience. I have grown exhausted with seeing films in multiplexes, and I think if you can capitalize on all the aspects of the film-going experience that appeal to film buffs… they will flock. With the blogosphere there is now such a sudden urgency to see films first and I would consider that a premium to the experience I am willing to pay for. I cannot speak for other places but I suspect this sort of thing would work in Toronto… Cinematheque is often sold-out long in advance, there is a real enthusiasm for cinema here. Imagine seeing the films first, without the advertisements, without the accidental film-viewers (i.e. people coming to see a rompin stompin western with Brad Pitt and seeing a quiet character study in Jesse James), bringing back some of the nostalgia value of cinema going, in the design… I would total pay above price for that.
And I guess what I’m getting at is that I think it would be great to have that option but I know I wouldn’t always use it.
Not to mention I really dislike the self professed “film buffs” crowd in Vancouver. They really come out of the woodwork around VIFF and these people really rub me the wrong way. Maybe it’s because I’m not one of “them”.
The vast majority of films are screened for critics in advance of release dates. If a film isn’t screened it pretty much is assured of being a horrible film. The vast majority of these screenings are in theaters, with the very small Indie releases typically being screeners sent to critics and theater managers and a few other people in the press.
Also, almost every big name film has screenings before the film is released. This is done essentially to generate buzz and to find out how well a film is being received by the public. If you ever go to a public screening you will notice as you leave that their is someone standing there asking what people thought of the film. Roll-outs can be greatly affected by how well the film is received, and while the big summer blockbusters are going to go on 3000+ screens no matter what, the rest of the year most films have a varied amount of release. Fromm 600 screens to upwards of 3000 screens. If a film isn’t expected to do well, it would be a huge financial loss to the studio to release it on thousands of screens, so they will adjust their schedules accordingly.
Limited releases and slow roll outs are typically for bigger name Indie films that rarely have the marketing push to compete with the huge studio films. Granted this has changed a bit since studios have started opening their own “Indie” brands, but it is a general guideline. As Kurt said, in the past all films were released in this fashion, as they would start in the “A” markets of LA and NY and possibly Chicago, and then proceed to B (Toronto, Washington DC, Atlanta, Minneapolis) and then to C markets (Milwaukee, Dallas, San Diego) and so on down the line. For true Indie films, this is typically because of the sheer lack of prints circulating because they don’t have the money to make more. As a current example, the new Blade Runner film had a whopping 5 prints being shipped around the globe to critics because it was going to be an extremely limited release, but the response was so overwhelmingly positive they pressed more and suddenly the film got a fairly decent sized release. For bigger Indie films these roll outs are done to judge marketability, buzz, and actual patron turn out. These films can rarely afford to suffer hits to their already limited markets if people aren’t showing up. Studios can afford to take a chance and release “Snakes on a Plane” in 3000 screens and still survive if it falls on their face because they have plenty of other films to counter-act any potential losses. For a film like “Sweetland” that went on to be an enormous financial success, it would have been catastrophic if the film was pushed to quickly and the market wasn’t there. And even though “Sweetland” did well and eventually got a fairly large limited release, it was still highly dependent on the numbers that were generated in Minnesota.
You are also forgetting about the individual theaters. Most of these smaller films are played at arthouse theaters first because they have exclusive agreements with the various studios to be able to show them first. They do this because it is the only way the smaller theaters can compete with the giant multiplexes.
Finally, the reason why the big studio pictures have such huge releases, is they view sell outs as a bad thing. To them a sell out means that customers were turned away, and that is lost revenue. They would much rather have more screens, ensuring that everyone who wants to see the film will be able to, leading to a downward trend in per screen averages. For arthouse and Indie theaters, the opposite view is taken. Sell outs help generate buzz, as if you turn away people they think that the film must be good for so many people to see it. So generally these films are only given one screen in a market, to help increase the chance of a sell out, which will in turn increase buzz and increase potential profits.
I liked the psychology of that last paragraph, Matt. Truly when it comes to the business of show(ing), the old saw of “Nobody knows anything!” is in full effect. Much like the ‘don’t play a movie in May, nobody goes to the movies in May. Ooops. The Matrix. Ooops. Spiderman. Now everyone fights for May slots.
The same would be true in Jan/Feb if anyone was brave enough to enter there first. But now it’s usually quirky small films (Be Kind, The LookOut, etc.) or prestige films the studio lost faith in (The Other Boleyn Girl).
As to the Upscale Multiplex. I’ll always pay extra if I can see something early and relatively distraction free. Yea, I want a two-tier film exhibition system. Some theatres in LA do this if I’m not mistaken (The ArcLight?), charge more and offer better experience. The selling point for me would be the week-or-two-in-advance. I’d have no problem paying $25 to see There Will Be Blood now instead of in December!
I think it needs to be branded as uniquely different than the multiplexes, because it does not work in practice when a multiplex has VIP screenings. The Varsity in Toronto a case in point. I saw Jesse James in the VIP there and it was one of the worst experiences I have had due to audience interference. The added price didn’t phase them… an air of film snobbery has to pervade the theater that I am thinking of…
Oh, those Varsity V.I.P screenings are the absolute worst. You can hear the film spooling thru the machine behind you, every audience stir/movement is amplified due to the small room and due to the ‘living room like’ setup, people think they are in their damn living room (entitlement because they paid extra or something or other) and chat away.
Never again will I see a movie in those V.I.P. rooms
(V.I.P. -> R.I.P)
Um… I would never pay $25 for a movie. I don’t care how early the release is. Maybe the film snobs in this forum would, but I’m pretty sure you’ll find yourself in the VERY small minority.
And that last paragraph in Matt’s comment (#12 above) is really interesting. I hadn’t thought of that before. Totally makes sense.
$25.00 for a ticket to a show… No thanks I’ll wait till its out on DVD and watch it as many times as I like, for probably less money!
This is really about the economics of the film industry getting us the movies we want to see, and letting them make enough money to stay in business – How can we get the movies we want to see without the stakeholders going broke. But there’s so many lies (eg, the big movies that never make a profit), vested interests (like MPAA), and entrenched thinking (Kurt’s examples in #13) its hard to know what a realistic alternate (or parallel?) solution would look like. If someone knows of a good reference on money and the film biz, I’d love to see it. Count me among the frustrated.
I would actually be willing to pay the extra to get some of these movies showing up earlier. I could always just cut out the popcorn and drink which I usually get.
$25 is pretty average for the Toronto International Film Festival… and some of these showings have no Q&A, it is just the opportunity to see the film ahead of most, with a group (ideally) that is as passionate about film as you are.
I think co-operatively these sorts of satellite cinemas could be set-up with a real emphasis on ‘the experience’ of film, and operate in tandem with the multitude multiplexes. The rep-theatres in Toronto have recently dropped in numbers, but then again their principle income came from older films. There is rarely this emphasis on seeing landmark new films first, in an atmosphere of mutual affection for cinema. It is a shame that something like ‘There Will be Blood’ will have to be viewed at the multiplex with, I’m sure, the crunch-slurp of digestion, the random film-goer who expects action and adrenaline, and yawns and talks when this does not happen. The annoying barrage of commercials, the complete soul-crushing experience that has become going to the cinema. Perhaps my early experience is different from most, but the small town I came from had a great theater, and the manager made events out of each film (at times dressing in character) and there was an event to the whole experience. This has been lost.
I’m just wondering if co-operative cinema-houses is the wave of the future… you become a shareholder of it and participate in it, and keep it going through your enthusiasm. I would think that art-film companies would appreciate showing their films first to people passionate about film, there is far likely to be a higher percentage of enthusiasm for the work, better word of mouth. You have a captive audience, and you can let them blog and generate buzz. It makes sense to me.
I can totally relate on watching great films with people who aren’t as passionate, or even as courteous, as enthusiasts. I think think your suggestion in the last paragraph, about co-operative cinema-houses is a great idea and if I had the funding, I’d certainly be willing to give something like that serious consideration. It would be interesting to get the perspective of an independent theater owner.
As for the $25 ticket price for TIFF – WOW. I can tell you now that if VIFF tickets were that expensive, I wouldn’t be going to nearly as many films.
Marina – You buy a 30 film package in advance of TIFF and that number drops to about $14.50 per film which ain’t half-bad. Single tix are steep though during the festival. The atmosphere in the public screenings is definitely there though! This was my first year with press credentials and I’d easily say that going to the public screenings is a far more enjoyable experience. Of course, once the lights go down, it’s you and the film.
rot – I too remember the days of single screens and how every film felt like an even. No commercials, music before the show. Copper gilded ceilings in large movie-houses. And this was 1981! Things started to change around 1986-1987 when all the theatres moved to the Mall (and in the spirit of locational synergy the whole film experience became more commodified in the hallowed halls of commerce that is our modern shopping centers) Imagine if 1978′s Dawn of the Dead played in the shopping malls. To strange to imagine.
Wow…TIFF is expensive. Even if I had the stamina to watch over 30 films in two weeks without loosing my mind, its still bucket loads more moohlah than VIFF. $9.50 for evening showings and $7.50 for anything that starts before 6pm. The evening rate is still cheaper than all but cheap seat Tuesday.
I’ve always felt that I could almost fly to Calgary for their film festival and it would be cheaper for me (including the air-fare!) than doing TIFF. But There is something about the size and selection and atmosphere at TIFF that makes it all worth while. Toronto loves the cinema.
Yeah, the $14.50 is a lot better but still a little on the expensive side. I guess I’d better start appreciating the VIFF prices a little more before they raise them quite that high.
I miss the Uptown theater at Yonge and Bloor. I would pay $25 just to have it back.
I’ve always wanted to own my own theater and even found one that I considered trying to figure out how to buy. I have lots of good ideas to make the movie going experience enjoyable again (not that it isn’t enjoyable for me now).
Unfortunately I have little business knowledge and wouldn’t even know where to begin once I owned the theater. Plus the competition would just be too stiff. Compete against the corporations and you’ll lose; unless you have serious private funding to back you up.
Still, if anyone wants to joint venture in a theater – I’d love to chip in!
PS – Coat hooks on the walls (especially in the cold/snowy regions) is a good start!
~ For Your Consideration ~
~ No Country for Old Men ~
BEST PICTURE
“I miss the Uptown theater at Yonge and Bloor. I would pay $25 just to have it back.”
Uptown Theatre, I miss you too. R.I.P.
Starting a theatre up in the U.S. is a lost cause nowadays. The big chains are just way too dominant. And if say you want to screen the more obscure, or even the classics… well, you’re going to be making pennies for profits, if anything, because it just costs too much to rent the reels and it’s just seemingly impossible to get the support nowadays to pay for itself, even with ridiculously overprice concessions. I got in a little venture with a local theatre to screen a reel of Raiders of the Lost Ark and it was TOUGH getting people to show up, despite everything I did to promote it. I can’t really remember, but I think about half of the theatre was full (at the most)… but that puppy should have EASILY been sold out. Raiders of the Lost Ark only screens in a SMALL handful of places in the U.S. every year!
Some places in Europe (I can’t remember where, I just remember reading about it), the government gives grants to “art cinemas,” where the grants keep these theatres open and they are free to screen classic films. Sort of like a “museum” where you can pay whatever it might be, $5 maybe, to watch the classics. Would the U.S. government ever give the money away to fund what I consider a cultural necessity? Probably not. But maybe.
We recently had a venture called “Evil Film School”. Once a month they rented a little shanty shack called the “Blim” and projected wonderfully horrible B-movies and assorted trash. It cost between $5.oo to what ever your willing to pay, and you got to sit for a double feature of nasty goodness. It was packed like sardines the night we saw Turkish Star Wars, and everyone had a blast. Maybe Its small underground movie screenings like this that could be the future of the classic film. Makes me want to go out and buy a projector and do some guerrilla film screenings.