Why are movies released later in Europe, etc.
Gamma Five
I have a complaint, something bothers me.
When I surf the internet I see the release-dates of many films, I am
enticed to buy a ticket, reserve a seat... Yet, all this is not meant for
me. Because I live in Europe or any other place in the world where films
are released with a 3 to 5 month delay.
I feel that this must stop. I too want to talk about a film the same time
that
my American friends are all talking about it. I too want to see these
films
the same time my American friends do.
Before DVD you could clame inability to release films world-wide. Now,
there
is no reason for anyone to believe this "inability". The pressure from the
moviebussiness to implement a regioncoding scheme into the DVD is proof
enough.
You are delaying the releases to different countries on purpose. I find it
disturbing that your companies have made a deal spanning the entire sector
so that films are released with delays. Thus enabling you to make more
money.
You are making deals with each other, either secret, or implicit.
I would like to see what anti-trust legislation has to say about such
practices.
However, have you ever considered how your fans, in other places of the
world, feel?
Releasing films worldwide would encrease the popularity of films because of
the marketing power that could be implemented.
As it stands now, you are dissapointing more than half of your audience,
more than half of your revenue...
The situation for you will worsen when other movie-fans become actively
aware of these facts.
Dave Luyten
e-mail: gamm...@hotmail.com
CW Lockett
In a word, hype.
You're talking about American movies released later in Europe, of course. The
same thing is true on this side of the pond - we get Euro pix later than you
continentals and for the exact same reason - if we hear that "The Full Monty"
did gangbuster box office, we'll be hot to see it, too. If you hear that
"Titanic" did $750 million domestic, you'll want to see it. It's all based on
the concept of "forward spin" and advance publicity.
If a film comes to you armed with big box office and a slew of quotes from
American critics and newspapers, guess what, it does better box office.
That's about all there is to it. Hype begets hype. Interest in the film begets
interest in the film and the ever-present bottom-line of butts in the seats.
Just my $.02
Christopher Lockett
Atlanta
Scott Norwood
Yes and no. There are also more practical considerations which determine
film release timing as well. For example, re-dubbing or subtitling takes
time and a distributor might want to release the film as soon as possible
domestically in order to take advantage of a particular release "window"
before the dubbing or subtitling prints are made. Also, domestic prints
are often re-used for foreign distribution; US prints with English tracks
can be distributed to English-speaking nations or have laser subtitles
added (assuming minimal footage loss in each reel). This saves print
costs for the distributors. Another reason for differing release dates
might be the different competition in different markets. An American
distributor might want to delay the foreign release of a particular
film in order to take advantage of the competition (or lack thereof)
in a given market.
There are some extreme examples of this sort of delayed release...for
example, "Les Visitors" (sp?) was released in France in 1993, but didn't
make it to the US until 1995 or 1996.
Not that this is a bad thing, of course...as the previous poster said,
it takes time for a film's reputation to make its way around the world,
and well-reviewed films which have records of boxoffice success tend
to attract audiences in greater numbers than new never-heard-of-it
foreign films.
Personally, I don't really understand the "need to see it on opening
weekend" attitude. I see a lot of films, and nearly always see them in
second-run or repertory cinemas; I can't remember the last time when I
went to see a film in its opening weekend. After all, the movie itself
is exactly the same, whether one sees it on the first day of release or
fifty years later...
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
La...@la.com
>To all bigtime moviemakers around the world,
>
>I have a complaint, something bothers me.
>
>When I surf the internet I see the release-dates of many films, I am
>enticed to buy a ticket, reserve a seat... Yet, all this is not meant for
>me. Because I live in Europe or any other place in the world where films
>are released with a 3 to 5 month delay.
>
>I feel that this must stop. I too want to talk about a film the same time
>that
>my American friends are all talking about it. I too want to see these
>films
>the same time my American friends do.
That's a great idea, but then you'd hear people complaining about the
marketing power of American films ;) Seriously, usually, there has to
be a little lag as films are often (but not always) rushed through
post to make a pre-ordained release date and need to be
translated/subtitled/dubbed for foreign release. For the main it is
just the way the distributors choose to operate. Occasionally a film
will come out in Europe first as Superman II did way back when.
>
>Before DVD you could clame inability to release films world-wide. Now,
>there
>is no reason for anyone to believe this "inability". The pressure from the
>moviebussiness to implement a regioncoding scheme into the DVD is proof
>enough.
I fail to see what DVD has to do with theatrical release patterns.
>
>You are delaying the releases to different countries on purpose. I find it
>disturbing that your companies have made a deal spanning the entire sector
>so that films are released with delays. Thus enabling you to make more
>money.
You find it disturbing that a company in the business of distributing
films wants to make more money?!!! (!?)
>
>You are making deals with each other, either secret, or implicit.
>I would like to see what anti-trust legislation has to say about such
>practices.
Again, I fail to see what that has to do with release patterns.
La...@la.com
>>>why are movies released later in Europe?
>
>In a word, hype.
>
>You're talking about American movies released later in Europe, of course. The
>same thing is true on this side of the pond - we get Euro pix later than you
>continentals and for the exact same reason - if we hear that "The Full Monty"
>did gangbuster box office, we'll be hot to see it, too. If you hear that
>"Titanic" did $750 million domestic, you'll want to see it. It's all based on
>the concept of "forward spin" and advance publicity.
>
>If a film comes to you armed with big box office and a slew of quotes from
>American critics and newspapers, guess what, it does better box office.
That's probably part of the equation, but if it were true, wouldn't it
make sense to release films in only part of the country before rolling
to the other part?
La...@la.com
>In article <19990515152313...@ng60.aol.com>,
>CW Lockett <cwlo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>why are movies released later in Europe?
>>
>>In a word, hype.
>
>Yes and no. There are also more practical considerations which determine
>film release timing as well. For example, re-dubbing or subtitling takes
>time and a distributor might want to release the film as soon as possible
>domestically in order to take advantage of a particular release "window"
>before the dubbing or subtitling prints are made. Also, domestic prints
>are often re-used for foreign distribution; US prints with English tracks
>can be distributed to English-speaking nations or have laser subtitles
>added (assuming minimal footage loss in each reel). This saves print
>costs for the distributors. Another reason for differing release dates
>might be the different competition in different markets. An American
>distributor might want to delay the foreign release of a particular
>film in order to take advantage of the competition (or lack thereof)
>in a given market.
>
>There are some extreme examples of this sort of delayed release...for
>example, "Les Visitors" (sp?) was released in France in 1993, but didn't
>make it to the US until 1995 or 1996.
>
>Not that this is a bad thing, of course...as the previous poster said,
>it takes time for a film's reputation to make its way around the world,
>and well-reviewed films which have records of boxoffice success tend
>to attract audiences in greater numbers than new never-heard-of-it
>foreign films.
Actually there was a recent study that showed that the number of
review was what counted, not their content. There's no such thing as
bad publicity.
Steven Weller
>>That's probably part of the equation, but if it were true, wouldn't it
make sense to release films in only part of the country before rolling
to the other part?<<
...which is still done in the US, though not as much as it once was. Typically,
a smaller film will open in New York City and Los Angeles, as much as several
weeks before it 'goes wide' to the rest of the country, specifically to get
some word-of-mouth and some positive press. Larger films, with proprtionally
higher P&A budgets, will siulate this effect by holding press screenings in NYC
and LA first, and in the hinterlands a bit later, before the film ever opens.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
La...@la.com
that anyone would take a critic's opinion seriously. What';s even
more sad is the major studios using their considerable marketing power
to help market said critics.