Where's the opening act?
July 22, 2010 5:41 AM Subscribe
How come there are no "opening acts" for Hollywood movies?
There are Academy Awards for live action and animated short films, so obviously many excellent short films come out each year. So why not show a short film after the trailers and before the main feature?
Most people can sit through another 5 to 15 minutes for an opening act right? This could showcase up-and-coming directors/actors/new talent doing short films. It would be pretty cool to see a short film steal the show, kind of like an opening band at a concert that surprises everyone.
If this has been attempted before, why did it fail?
There are Academy Awards for live action and animated short films, so obviously many excellent short films come out each year. So why not show a short film after the trailers and before the main feature?
Most people can sit through another 5 to 15 minutes for an opening act right? This could showcase up-and-coming directors/actors/new talent doing short films. It would be pretty cool to see a short film steal the show, kind of like an opening band at a concert that surprises everyone.
If this has been attempted before, why did it fail?
Pixar does this.
posted by Rory Marinich at 5:49 AM on July 22, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Rory Marinich at 5:49 AM on July 22, 2010 [3 favorites]
Pixar do it. And there are occasional worthy schemes to do it in, e.g. the United Kingdom. But basically the problem is that there is no economic incentive. Theatre bookers and distributors like movies that people will pay to see and movies that are short (and ideally both). Adding 15 minutes to your running time by including a short from an unknown film-maker helps with neither. This is not like a live music event, where the venue is booked for the whole evening, so there's no harm in adding a couple more acts, and people can show up late. They want to get the audience in, show them some adverts then the movie, and get them out.
posted by caek at 5:53 AM on July 22, 2010
posted by caek at 5:53 AM on July 22, 2010
Coke has the Coca-Cola Refreshing Filmmaker's Award which is a contest to let someone make a 50-second ad / film that Coke then pays to run before films.
Reasons why movie theaters wouldn't do this on their own:
1) They would need to pay for it.
2) People already complain that the movie doesn't start on time, delaying it by 10 minutes would really annoy people.
3) If you don't match the short film well to the feature film, you will end up with unsatisfied customers.
4) Unless you pair each feature film with a different short film, people who see a lot of movies would end up seeing a lot of duplicate short films which they may not enjoy.
5) Extending the movie time reduces the number of times you can play a movie each day.
posted by smackfu at 5:58 AM on July 22, 2010
Reasons why movie theaters wouldn't do this on their own:
1) They would need to pay for it.
2) People already complain that the movie doesn't start on time, delaying it by 10 minutes would really annoy people.
3) If you don't match the short film well to the feature film, you will end up with unsatisfied customers.
4) Unless you pair each feature film with a different short film, people who see a lot of movies would end up seeing a lot of duplicate short films which they may not enjoy.
5) Extending the movie time reduces the number of times you can play a movie each day.
posted by smackfu at 5:58 AM on July 22, 2010
Movies used to be like this before the sixties. They'd show short films, cartoons and news programs before the feature presentation.
posted by octothorpe at 6:01 AM on July 22, 2010
posted by octothorpe at 6:01 AM on July 22, 2010
There are Academy Awards for live action and animated short films, so obviously many excellent short films come out each year.
The fact that there are awards for short films doesn't prove that the award winners are excellent; they could simply be "the best of a bad bunch".
posted by Mike1024 at 6:02 AM on July 22, 2010
The fact that there are awards for short films doesn't prove that the award winners are excellent; they could simply be "the best of a bad bunch".
posted by Mike1024 at 6:02 AM on July 22, 2010
They used to do this routinely in the Seventies and a little into the Eighties.
Not sure why they stopped.
One factor might be that when multiplexes started taking over, one advantage was that they could show the hit movie on multiple screens, starting at slightly different times, so you could just roll up anytime and know a performance would start soon. So, the shorter they can keep the performance, the more frequent the start times.
Another factor might be the increasing concentration on a few hit movies. People don't tend so much to just go out to the movies anymore, they want to see a specific film. So having an extra feature isn't that much of an extra draw.
I think in general people feel busier and more focused now. They feel they have less time, and they don't want to waste it on something they haven't specifically decided they want.
And they did misjudge it sometimes. As kids, we were terrified by a scary short they put on before Ghostbusters.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:06 AM on July 22, 2010
Not sure why they stopped.
One factor might be that when multiplexes started taking over, one advantage was that they could show the hit movie on multiple screens, starting at slightly different times, so you could just roll up anytime and know a performance would start soon. So, the shorter they can keep the performance, the more frequent the start times.
Another factor might be the increasing concentration on a few hit movies. People don't tend so much to just go out to the movies anymore, they want to see a specific film. So having an extra feature isn't that much of an extra draw.
I think in general people feel busier and more focused now. They feel they have less time, and they don't want to waste it on something they haven't specifically decided they want.
And they did misjudge it sometimes. As kids, we were terrified by a scary short they put on before Ghostbusters.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:06 AM on July 22, 2010
The fact that there are awards for short films doesn't prove that the award winners are excellent; they could simply be "the best of a bad bunch".
For the past three or four years I've managed to find a theater near me that was showing all the Oscar-nominated shorts. In my experience, the above statement isn't true at all. There's a lot of really good stuff being made right now. If you have a theater near you running this program (IFC Center in NYC did it this past year), I'd recommend it to everybody.
posted by soonertbone at 6:08 AM on July 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
For the past three or four years I've managed to find a theater near me that was showing all the Oscar-nominated shorts. In my experience, the above statement isn't true at all. There's a lot of really good stuff being made right now. If you have a theater near you running this program (IFC Center in NYC did it this past year), I'd recommend it to everybody.
posted by soonertbone at 6:08 AM on July 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Not sure why they stopped.
One reason is that there was a Supreme Court decision against block-booking.
posted by smackfu at 6:11 AM on July 22, 2010
One reason is that there was a Supreme Court decision against block-booking.
posted by smackfu at 6:11 AM on July 22, 2010
The fact that there are awards for short films doesn't prove that the award winners are excellent; they could simply be "the best of a bad bunch".
The Academy has in the past reduced the number of nominees in a category where it did not feel there was enough quality to justify a full slate, and they've also killed entire categories permanently when the particular facet of moviemaking was not judged to be worthy of awards anymore. The fact that they're still putting out a slate of five nominees per year -- and remember, these are judged by people who have some experience in their particular field before they get released to the general AMPAS membership -- tells me that there's a lot of good stuff out there.
posted by Etrigan at 6:13 AM on July 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
The Academy has in the past reduced the number of nominees in a category where it did not feel there was enough quality to justify a full slate, and they've also killed entire categories permanently when the particular facet of moviemaking was not judged to be worthy of awards anymore. The fact that they're still putting out a slate of five nominees per year -- and remember, these are judged by people who have some experience in their particular field before they get released to the general AMPAS membership -- tells me that there's a lot of good stuff out there.
posted by Etrigan at 6:13 AM on July 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Yep, I remember this being the case in the early 80s as a kid in England -- they often used to show cartoons before the main presentation.. not sure if it was limited to 'kid-friendly' films, but I think I recall it happening with both ET and Back to the Future.. not 100% sure on what the shorts were, but I think they were probably warner brothers cartoons.
posted by modernnomad at 6:20 AM on July 22, 2010
posted by modernnomad at 6:20 AM on July 22, 2010
As I have said on Mefi before, the answer to any question that begins "Why don't they..." is always "money."
If you offer a distributor the choice between ten minutes of ads on screen that generate revenue and ten minutes of quirky short film that generates none, there is little suprise in which one wins out.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:29 AM on July 22, 2010
If you offer a distributor the choice between ten minutes of ads on screen that generate revenue and ten minutes of quirky short film that generates none, there is little suprise in which one wins out.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:29 AM on July 22, 2010
It's strictly business. The theater makes money on the commercials it shows before the film. And it wants to squeeze in as many of those as possible between screenings. Pixar has the leverage to add a short before its films.
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:57 AM on July 22, 2010
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:57 AM on July 22, 2010
Most people can sit through another 5 to 15 minutes for an opening act right?
Well, the question isn't so much whether people "can sit through" it, as if they're little kids whose parents have made them go to church and sit there quietly whether they like it or not. Customers have free choice. The question is whether they'll want to sit through all this. If they don't, ticket sales will dry up.
If the previews already take around 12 minutes, and a short is also around 12 minutes, and there are a few extra minutes of filler (dead air, "Please be quiet ... Turn off your cell phones ...," "20th Century Fox ...," etc.), that's a long half-hour of waiting for The Movie to start. I don't agree that customers would be willing to sit through that, even if it's some brilliant Academy Award contender.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2010
Well, the question isn't so much whether people "can sit through" it, as if they're little kids whose parents have made them go to church and sit there quietly whether they like it or not. Customers have free choice. The question is whether they'll want to sit through all this. If they don't, ticket sales will dry up.
If the previews already take around 12 minutes, and a short is also around 12 minutes, and there are a few extra minutes of filler (dead air, "Please be quiet ... Turn off your cell phones ...," "20th Century Fox ...," etc.), that's a long half-hour of waiting for The Movie to start. I don't agree that customers would be willing to sit through that, even if it's some brilliant Academy Award contender.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2010
Theaters are already on the very edge of hemorrhaging viewers due to the length of pre-roll ads, cell phone noise, disrespectful and noisy patrons, etc. They would be insane to add another annoyance that didn't pay for itself like the ads do.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:48 AM on July 22, 2010
posted by Rhomboid at 9:48 AM on July 22, 2010
Not sure if other places/venues do this, but here in New York the local PBS affiliate does this on Saturday nights. They show a "classic" movie, then a short (which you can actually vote for on their site), and then an "indie". It starts at 9, and I think the idea is that you hook 'em with something either crowd-pleasing or award-winning/influential, then they'll stick around for the short, and finally around 11:30 you can show a newer, edgier flick with cursing and boobies without having to cut it to death.
I've seen a lot of great features and shorts this way (many that I never would have seen otherwise), and there are even some Saturdays where the combo is so good I'm willing to blow off going out with friends. Every public television station should do this. IFC, TCM and all the other basic cable movie channels should do this. Best programming concept Evar.
posted by Sara C. at 11:11 AM on July 22, 2010
I've seen a lot of great features and shorts this way (many that I never would have seen otherwise), and there are even some Saturdays where the combo is so good I'm willing to blow off going out with friends. Every public television station should do this. IFC, TCM and all the other basic cable movie channels should do this. Best programming concept Evar.
posted by Sara C. at 11:11 AM on July 22, 2010
smackfu: "One reason is that there was a Supreme Court decision against block-booking."
I don't think that's what you think it is. At least from reading the wikipedia article, I get the idea that it was about studios selling blocks of films to theaters in order for the theater to get that one movie that everyone is talking about. The theaters would have to pay more than usual and get a bunch of films that they didn't want to show really.
posted by wayland at 12:11 PM on July 22, 2010
I don't think that's what you think it is. At least from reading the wikipedia article, I get the idea that it was about studios selling blocks of films to theaters in order for the theater to get that one movie that everyone is talking about. The theaters would have to pay more than usual and get a bunch of films that they didn't want to show really.
posted by wayland at 12:11 PM on July 22, 2010
Well, there's part in there about bundling shorts with features too, just no details. I don't totally understand the wikipedia article, but there's a bit more on it in the Short film one.
posted by smackfu at 12:14 PM on July 22, 2010
posted by smackfu at 12:14 PM on July 22, 2010
Back in the day, there used to be cartoons, short subjects, newsreels, and sometimes even live acts!
posted by sdn at 6:02 PM on July 24, 2010
posted by sdn at 6:02 PM on July 24, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Vindaloo at 5:47 AM on July 22, 2010 [1 favorite]