UPDATE, 6:40 AM: In a conference call with analysts, CEO Rich Gelfond continued to talk up future opportunities while acknowledging that “like you we’re not happy” with recent box office sales. He’s talking to studios about making films available to IMAX venues before they open elsewhere and is “optimistic about obtaining a title in the not-too-distant future.” He’s also considering making a bigger bet on potential blockbusters by reducing the number of films IMAX shows each year. No decision has been made but “my own vote is for less (films) with longer lead times.” Gelfond also will change the mix of films IMAX runs: “Our audience is more of a fanboy-driven audience than a family-driven audience, so we are going to make an adjustment.” Gelfond says he’s excited about a new digital laser projection technology he hopes to introduce in 2013 that would brighten screen images and reduce costs on bulbs. He’s not sure, though, whether he’ll accomodate director Peter Jackson’s effort to have his upcoming film The Hobbit shown at 48 frames per second vs the industry average of 24 fps. “We’re in discussions with Warner as to whether it makes sense,” he says.
PREVIOUS, 4:55 AM: Not a happy quarter for IMAX. The large-screen theater company reported 2Q net income of $1.8M, down 86.5% vs the same period last year, on revenues of $57.2M, up 3%. After adjusting for stock compensation and deferred taxes, earnings came in at 7 cents a share — a big miss from the 20 cents that analysts forecast. The results “did not live up to our financial expectations,” CEO Rich Gelfond says. He adds that over the last six months “it appears that there were fewer blockbuster titles that are consistent with our brand than in the same period last year,” which included Avatar. He says he’s encouraged by recent ticket sales for Transformers and Harry Potter – and an increase in the number of orders to build IMAX theaters. Still, the company says that the disappointing early 2011 box office sales mean that cash flow for the year will be lower than it was last year although revenues are expected to be flat. Gelfond urges investors to focus on the prospect of long-term growth, saying that “the response to our brand and the significant progress we continue to make on expanding our global network are powerful forces.”

The public is shunning whats come out in mass BECAUSE (in my opinion?) the industry as a whole has gotten away from THE STORY! going all the way back to the silent era, the industry was struggling through a depression – cranking out the usual fare when along comes D.W.Griffiths with his “BROKEN BLOSSOMS” AND STUDIO AFTER STUDIO, not perceiving their illness – told him it wouldn’t fly because “IT DEALS WITH THE TABOO OF AN INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIP – AND AT THE END EVERYBODY DIES” soOOO HE BEGGED AND BORROWED 91,000 DOLLARS FROM EVERYONE HE KNEW AND IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN THE DUST SETTLED – IT GROSSED 200M WORLDWIDE! (but then he also made birth of a nation so no body’s perfect)
Fast forward to Gibson’s PASSION. the industry again didn’t recognize the HUNGER out there for faith based entertainment and studio after studio AGAIN turned down THE EXACT MEDICINE it needed to cure its malady. SOoo for 20M and a year on his own he grossed what was it 400M? I also believe that insatiable hunger is still out there and to date it’s largely ignored.(just one mans opinion)
Lew
I think I like your post, but I had to stop reading everytime I hit a wall of Caps Lock.
Watching a film in IMAX just isn’t worth it. It a bigger image, sure, but why pay extra?
>Peter Jackson’s effort to have his upcoming film The Hobbit shown at 48 frames per second vs the industry average of 24 fps
Way back around 1989, Sean Cunningham did something tricky with the frame-rate of an obscure monster film called, “Deepstar Six.” I think he shot it special, rather than insist on special projection. And I remember watching the film carefully and seeing no difference whatsoever. Can anyone report on projection 48fps vs. 24 fps? Is it visibly a better experience?
There will be a difference between regular movies’ 24fps and Jackson’s 48fps. That is all.
Michael
Do a search on “Showscan.” It was a system developed by Doug Trumble, a Hollywood special FX specialist (“2001; Space Odyssey, “Close Encounters,” “Blade Runner”). Showscan films were shot and shown at 60-frames-per-second (fps) in 65mm. The films were spectacular: no flicker, high resolution, rock-steady images. Problem with the format: film cost was exorbitant, burning up 3-times the amount of film as standard 65-mm film rate of 24-fps. The specialized Showscan theaters were small and the films short. So, frame rate can make a difference. But, at what cost. Doug is working on Digital Showscan now at 120-fps!!
IMAX should also think about their commitment to 3D. I have no interest in it, especially a post-converted 3D like Harry Potter. These days, if a film is released in 2D and 3D to regular theaters, IMAX almost always ONLY gets the 3D version. I used to go to IMAX much more often but the last time I went was for Star Trek two years ago. I would gladly have paid for Harry Potter this time, but don’t want the 3D, and last time (for Deathly Hallows Part 1) my IMAX was too busy screening nature documentaries to get it.
I used to only go to IMAX when I would see a movie, but now I never do. Why? Because if a film is in 3D they only show it in 3D, no 2D option.
Thank goodness for Nolan, I will for sure be seeing Dark Knight Rises as his films are only in 2D (and actually shoots scenes with IMAX cameras!).
(And when I mean IMAX I mean the FULL-SIZE screens, not the digital LIE-MAX).
Anybody who refers to paying customers as “fanboys” should not be in business at all, Gelfond. Thanks for the insight.
Huh…I would have blamed high prices over crappy movies. EVerything in IMAX I saw at a regular screen because I couldn’t justify the extra price on Faux IMAX.
I’m going to go out on a limb here but would it have anything to do with the fake IMAX screens at AMC? Those screens average 27 feet while real IMAX screens are 65 to 72 feet, yet both charge the same amount for a movie. IMAX tried to pitch their greedy plan as “a movie experience.” That’s complete BS! I don’t go to an IMAX theater for their THX sound; I can get that anywhere. I go to IMAX to see movies on the REALLY BIG F**KING SCREEN. Everyone I know feels cheated once I tell them the difference between real IMAX and fake IMAX.
Maybe IMAX should Blame the faux max movies….truely hardly any movies are shot in true IMAX when they are it’s absolutely stunning….but waaaaay to many movies are not shot in IMAX then blown up to fit 60% of a real IMAX screen…..faux max is the problem….people have finally realized this and that’s not worth the money….just like a film converted to 3D instead of shot in 3D!!!
Bless ye; oh my. This headline gave me the hardest laugh of the week. Still wiping away the tears.
Q: Why is Imax revenue down?
A: The movies suck.
Who knew the Imax dudes were so pithy?
Amazing how they blame their problems on a bad run of movies when it was AVATAR and other strong movies that pulled the company out of potentially going belly up. They did a very good job getting into bed with hollywood and now that their earnings are upside down and the paying public, especially families, have figured out the scam of converted 3D movies and high ticket prices the gig is up. Don’t worry about having to throw a benefit for these guys. Just check how much money the top people in the company have earned from huge option grants given to themselves that have yield millions and you won’t feel sorry for the hit they just took in earnings. They loved 3D when it helped defined their company and now will have to figure out what to do now that 3D is not the home run they thought it would be. They are actually smart guys so they will just have to come up with a new angle but the big run up in the stock is over.
The Luxors 7 story Imax was the best. If they still had it and showed these new movies on it I would have to move to Las Vegas.