"[..] The notion that distribution is a hard-headed enterprise is correct. But the assertion that this leads to real competition is ludicrous - it ensures market domination by US producers. For all the blathering to the effect that US audiences have no interest in foreign film, in addition to university screenings across the thousands of US colleges, there is a vast array of small companies striving to meet the needs of this supposedly non-existent demand.
Decisions about the number of prints are also important during the final promotional effort for exhibition. combined with the advertising budget, prints often raise marketing costs to 50% of a feature film's total value. From a marketing perspective, the investment is justified, because more prints mean more opportunities for poster displays and for the film's title to occupy available marquee space, much like a billboard announcing a new product. Release strategies, therefore, usually include considerations of an optimal volume of prints as part of a single marketing event with advertising ad other promotions. Major distributors usually opt for wide US release, with 1,000 or 2,000 prints distributed and advertised on a nationwide basis, including '100 theatres in Los Angeles and 80 theatres in New York'. Wide releases have come to 'represent about 3/4 of total box office revenue'. In contrast, speciality distributors use a method called platforming, in which they release prints in 3 to 5 key theatres in Los Angeles and New York to build awareness through the local press and then 'platform' their films to other cities. Limited releases are those that do not appear beyond 2 or 3 major cities."
Global Hollywood 2 (Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, Ting Wang; 2005; BFI)
Related:
- High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Justin Wyatt; 1994)
- Movie Marketing: Opening the Picture and Giving it Legs (T. Lukk; 1997)
- "Old-World Moviegoing: Theatrical Distribution of European films in the United States" in Film Journal International (Elisabetta Brunella; March 2001)
- October 2011 releases USA
- Dissecting American Distribution / GQ vs Hollywood (Harris) / Second Class Film Distribution
- USA quarantine year's best films
- Slow release / Weak's Cutoff : No Cinephilia
- Long Tail Consumers
4 commentaires:
"The independent sector is a wild game these days: bristling with capital investors, egotistical producers and stressed-out distributors who get it right only some of the time."
Jeremy Kay(The Guardian; 23 Jan 2012)
"[..] My argument is that - with 14 screens, they could spare ONE for "film as art" movies. Candidly, I think they would have decent business for more than a week on "The Artist," but it will never play Burlington. I have discussed this with Moira, a longtime acquaintance. She has told me that this "industry censorship" extends to Seattle. [..]
In a way, I view this "new censorship" as even more insidious. There's no way to fight it. I truly believe that the chains that presume the public as totally dumb - and have no concept of "building an audience" - may not only endanger grosses, but also shoot down many potentially great creative talents. [..]"
Some guy in LA thinks you live in a hick town From Jim Selvidge in Burlington, Washington (Reader's letter; RogerEbert.com; 9 Jan 2012)
"In the decades following the Second World War, foreign-language film distribution in North America operated as a distinct market sector. Foreign-language was a small market niche, outside the control of Hollywood, where independent distributors acted as the main suppliers. From the early 1990s, however, the major Hollywood studios either acquired successful independent distributors or formed their own in-house specialty distribution division, blurring the distinction between independents and the modern studio system, and giving rise to the sector of the film business which became known as ‘Indiewood’. As part of this trend, Miramax and Sony Pictures Classics became the leading players in the foreign-language market. The two companies not only released the most commercially successful foreign-language imports but also dominated the foreign-language award categories of the Golden Globes and Oscars. Tracing these developments, this paper therefore outlines the Indiewoodization of the foreign-language film market in North America. One sign of Miramax's supremacy in this market was the box office success of the Italian import, Life is Beautiful, which in 1999 became the highest grossing foreign-language film to that date. The paper therefore looks at how strategic releasing and marketing made the film into a foreign-language hit."
Miramax, Life is Beautiful, and the Indiewoodization of the foreign-language film market in the USA (Paul McDonald; New Review of Film and Television Studies, Volume 7, Issue 4; Dec 2009)
Neil Young : "[..] You say, in Australia, Kiarostami and Apichatpong wouldn't get commercial distribution, not even like Melbourne or Sidney? Well, to me it's suggesting that the wrong people are running the cinemas. And really, it's all very well to say the top films of the year include Apitchapong and whatever else it is, but we could knock on that door and keep saying : 'these are the guys you should be showing', and then the cinema manager or the guy who programs say : 'well, we could probably fill the house with The King's Speech, followed by Black Swan, followed by something else'. I mean, to what extent do films critics need to be saying : 'this is a dysfunctional situation, it's badly out of synch'. My local cinema is showing 128 hours, The King's Speech, Black Swan... and they do show Apichatpong, but it's upstairs in the small cinema. And that's because if they wanna show Black Swan they gotta put it on for a fortnight on their biggest screen, otherwise teh distributor doesn't give it to them. So it's the fault of the exhibitors and it's the fault of the distributors."
Filmkrant's "Out of the comfort Zone" roundtable at Rotterdam Film Festival 2011
Enregistrer un commentaire