do you need a permit/license to deal with cineplex owners? at DVinfo.net

Yi Fong Yu · July 15th, 2004, 11:43 AM

i know that hollywood has this huge process of distributors that take a copy of film then duplicate it, like into 3,000 copies and then send it to cineplexes all over the US.

do you NEED to be a distributor to have cineplexes play your movie? reason i'm asking is let's say that i have a DV feature length movie. if the cineplex owners would foot the cost of paying for the copies of film and then distribute it to their own cinemas and then finally showing it all the while advertising for it, is this possible?

i wasn't referring to connections. i was wondering if it is LEGAL for cineplexes to distribute a NON-distributor-backed movie. i mean are there ANY legal precedences for this? if there are NO legal procedures then i can't see what would be wrong.... if you can convince the cinema owners to take that risk. i mean think about it... if i made my movie for virtually FREE then i give them to spend a few thousand to make copies of my movie and then let them advertise it to their patrons exclusively. if they made 2 million dollars they get to keep 1 million. that's awesome for cineplex owners.

Joshua Starnes · July 15th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Yes, it's legal, the owners of the theaters can show whatever they want - there are no exclusive distribution deals between theaters and studios. There used to be, but they were ruled to be illegal, so now distributors cannot overtly influence what a theater shows.

For instance, the movie Bubba Ho-Tep was distributed independently, becuase no one would carry it. In many cases the director delivered to prints to the theaters that agreed to show it personally. I belive the most prints they ever had in circulation were like 6, it's not the best of routes, but it is possible. And legal.

However, as far getting theater owners to pay to filmout and print your film for exhibition, I don't think you have much hope there. It doesn't hurt to ask, of course, but the odds are heavily against you.

Richard Alvarez · July 15th, 2004, 04:45 PM

A "mainstream" theatre operator is not going to risk taking a mainstream film off a screen to give an indy theatre time. Having said that, it's possilbe they might schedule a morning matinee during the week, or posibly a midnite showing, escpecially if YOU prove to them you are spending oodles of money on advertising and will get enough people into their theatre to cover the airconditiong, security and maintenance costs....

Of course, they will be more than happy to "rent" the theatre to you too. Just ask what it would cost.

Better luck with the "art" houses and micro cinemas. Look into MicroCinema International.

Law Tyler · July 15th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Is anything shot with DV, even the most expensive, the best DV, at 720x480, good enough quality to show on a real cinema screen? Just wondering.

Don't you need to shoot at least 16mm or something for that?

Dylan Couper · July 16th, 2004, 12:10 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Law Tyler : Is anything shot with DV, even the most expensive, the best DV, at 720x480, good enough quality to show on a real cinema screen? Just wondering.

Don't you need to shoot at least 16mm or something for that? -->>>

Law, do a search on the film 28 Days Later. There was much subjective discussion as to the quality of miniDV blown up to 35mm film and shown at a theater. The thread should have all the answers you seek.

Richard Alvarez · July 16th, 2004, 07:29 AM

I was in the theatre a few days ago, watching "The Twenty" which is twenty minutes of filler and promos, projected digitally on the screen. It's a real good opportunity to compare formats actually. Watch very closely as the images and graphics are screened. Remember, you are watching a "digital projection". Some of the images are originated in a digital format. The graphics will often look ragged, with stair-stepping on the diagonal lines, even sharp lines of digital spots look like crap. Especially when compared to the film sequences that are mixed in to the digital sequences.

As it happened, the very first preview of coming attractions was "Open Water". Shot digitally on a VX2000 I think (?). Remember, we have switched from watching a DIGITAL PROJECTION of a mix of Digital and Film sequences, to watching a FILM PROJECTION of a digital sequence. The images looked markedly better, going from digital to film.

Until the next preview showed. The difference between film and digital was very obvious, and very noticeable.

That being said, I suspect open water will do well. Why? Because it seems like a great premise and a compelling story. But then again, I've surfaced after an open water dive in Austrailia, unable to find the boat... I will never forget that fear. So maybe it's just me.

But I firmly believe content is king. Story story story....

July 15th, 2004, 11:43 AM	#1
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	do you need a permit/license to deal with cineplex owners? i know that hollywood has this huge process of distributors that take a copy of film then duplicate it, like into 3,000 copies and then send it to cineplexes all over the US. do you NEED to be a distributor to have cineplexes play your movie? reason i'm asking is let's say that i have a DV feature length movie. if the cineplex owners would foot the cost of paying for the copies of film and then distribute it to their own cinemas and then finally showing it all the while advertising for it, is this possible? i wasn't referring to connections. i was wondering if it is LEGAL for cineplexes to distribute a NON-distributor-backed movie. i mean are there ANY legal precedences for this? if there are NO legal procedures then i can't see what would be wrong.... if you can convince the cinema owners to take that risk. i mean think about it... if i made my movie for virtually FREE then i give them to spend a few thousand to make copies of my movie and then let them advertise it to their patrons exclusively. if they made 2 million dollars they get to keep 1 million. that's awesome for cineplex owners. __________________ bow wow wow

July 16th, 2004, 12:10 AM	#5
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by Law Tyler : Is anything shot with DV, even the most expensive, the best DV, at 720x480, good enough quality to show on a real cinema screen? Just wondering. Don't you need to shoot at least 16mm or something for that? -->>> Law, do a search on the film 28 Days Later. There was much subjective discussion as to the quality of miniDV blown up to 35mm film and shown at a theater. The thread should have all the answers you seek. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

July 15th, 2004, 12:13 PM	#2
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	Yes, it's legal, the owners of the theaters can show whatever they want - there are no exclusive distribution deals between theaters and studios. There used to be, but they were ruled to be illegal, so now distributors cannot overtly influence what a theater shows. For instance, the movie Bubba Ho-Tep was distributed independently, becuase no one would carry it. In many cases the director delivered to prints to the theaters that agreed to show it personally. I belive the most prints they ever had in circulation were like 6, it's not the best of routes, but it is possible. And legal. However, as far getting theater owners to pay to filmout and print your film for exhibition, I don't think you have much hope there. It doesn't hurt to ask, of course, but the odds are heavily against you.

July 15th, 2004, 04:45 PM	#3
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	A "mainstream" theatre operator is not going to risk taking a mainstream film off a screen to give an indy theatre time. Having said that, it's possilbe they might schedule a morning matinee during the week, or posibly a midnite showing, escpecially if YOU prove to them you are spending oodles of money on advertising and will get enough people into their theatre to cover the airconditiong, security and maintenance costs.... Of course, they will be more than happy to "rent" the theatre to you too. Just ask what it would cost. Better luck with the "art" houses and micro cinemas. Look into MicroCinema International.

July 15th, 2004, 11:26 PM	#4
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Is anything shot with DV, even the most expensive, the best DV, at 720x480, good enough quality to show on a real cinema screen? Just wondering. Don't you need to shoot at least 16mm or something for that?

July 16th, 2004, 07:29 AM	#6
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I was in the theatre a few days ago, watching "The Twenty" which is twenty minutes of filler and promos, projected digitally on the screen. It's a real good opportunity to compare formats actually. Watch very closely as the images and graphics are screened. Remember, you are watching a "digital projection". Some of the images are originated in a digital format. The graphics will often look ragged, with stair-stepping on the diagonal lines, even sharp lines of digital spots look like crap. Especially when compared to the film sequences that are mixed in to the digital sequences. As it happened, the very first preview of coming attractions was "Open Water". Shot digitally on a VX2000 I think (?). Remember, we have switched from watching a DIGITAL PROJECTION of a mix of Digital and Film sequences, to watching a FILM PROJECTION of a digital sequence. The images looked markedly better, going from digital to film. Until the next preview showed. The difference between film and digital was very obvious, and very noticeable. That being said, I suspect open water will do well. Why? Because it seems like a great premise and a compelling story. But then again, I've surfaced after an open water dive in Austrailia, unable to find the boat... I will never forget that fear. So maybe it's just me. But I firmly believe content is king. Story story story....