BANKING ON OPENING-WEEKEND GROSSES; TV AD BLITZ GEARED TO FILL MOVIE THEATERS.

Byline: Peter Passell The New York Times

``Titanic,'' ``Tomorrow Never Dies,'' ``Scream 2,'' ``Flubber,'' ``Amistad'' or ``Anastasia.'' If you haven't been drawn to the blockbusters released since Thanksgiving, wait a day or two. Something new will come along: ``As Good as It Gets,'' ``The Postman,'' ``Kundun.'' For even as the cost of making and marketing the typical big-budget film approaches $70 million, the window of opportunity each movie has to find an audience is shrinking.

``It's as if Procter and Gamble had to launch a new toothpaste every other week,'' proposed Frank Rose, author of ``The Agency,'' a history of the William Morris talent agency.

Many people in the business are inclined to write off this make-it-or-break-it focus on the first weekend's box-office gross as a self-destructive impulse from an industry notorious for chasing the flavor of the month. But a closer look suggests that method lurks beneath the seeming madness that overtakes the film industry, especially at peak moviegoing times like Thanksgiving to New Year's.

The economics of marketing now powerfully favor nationwide openings in thousands of theaters over the traditional ``platforming'' approach, in which a movie opens in a few cities and builds. ``Distributors are effectively forced to spend everything up front,'' said Howard Lichtman, executive vice president for marketing for the Cineplex Odeon theater chain.

Box-office bungle

The intensity of the drive for a big opening weekend has often produced accusations that studios inflate figures. Box-office figures are based on the number of theaters showing a film, which is compiled in part by the studio. On Monday, Miramax Films, owned by Walt Disney Co., admitted that it had inflated ticket sales for the opening weekend of ``Scream 2.'' Miramax said the film grossed only $33 million on its opening weekend (Dec. 12-14), not the $39 million at first reported, because Miramax miscounted the theaters where it was playing.

The revenues from domestic theatrical release are a shrinking share of the total income from the typical film aimed at a mass audience. The opening has thus become the fulcrum for selling everything from videos to foreign distribution to toys and popcorn. As an indirect result, shelf life on the big screen is shrinking.

To be sure, there are no absolutes in film marketing. Many movies, in particular foreign films and independent productions with modest budgets, still open in a handful of theaters and still rely on media reviews and word-of-mouth to create an audience large enough to justify the move to the multiplexes.

By the same token, $50 million-plus productions are occasionally shown in New York or Los Angeles in time to qualify for Academy Award nominations, then open nationally months later. And ``sneak previews'' are still sometimes used to create a buzz weeks before the publicity avalanche. But with big-budget movies, the trend toward betting it all on the opening weekend seems inexorable.

In the early 1970s, a typical movie with broad appeal might open in 300 to 400 theaters. Today the seven major studios are releasing record numbers of films, 216 in 1996 compared with 134 in 1980. Yet the 2,000- to 3,000-screen opening, in an industry with a total of 29,000 screens, has become commonplace. On Thanksgiving weekend, for example, ``Flubber'' opened on 2,641 screens.

30-second sell

Television has played a key role in the change. While distributors have used local television spots for decades to supplement print advertising, Warner Bros. pioneered the use of network television as its principal advertising medium in the early 1980s, and others soon followed.

Today, prime-time shows on Wednesday and Thursday are flooded with trailers for the next weekend's movies. And for good reason. Despite the high cost, one studio executive said, national television delivers frequent moviegoers at the lowest price per person.

By the same token, it is widely accepted that an advertising blitz is more cost-effective than the same number of spots spread over a longer period.

``There are too many mice running around the field where the elephants are dancing,'' concluded Peter Graves, president for marketing at Polygram Films.

While dependence on television drives the saturation opening, so, too, does the contemporary economics of movie exhibition.

Between 1980 and 1996, the number of auditoriums increased by 69 percent while movie attendance rose just 31 percent, creating what is widely perceived as a glut in theater capacity.

It's not clear whether ``glut'' is the right word since, thanks to higher ticket prices, the total domestic box office gross rose 115 percent in the same period.

But there's little doubt that theaters often strain to fill auditoriums at $6 to $8 a ticket and put a premium on booking first-run films studded with stars and special effects that draw audiences.

CAPTION(S):

Photo, Chart

PHOTO Miramax Films admitted that it inflated ticket sales for screen fave ``Scream 2'' by $6 million, but said the error was accidental.

CHART: WHY MOVIES OPEN BIG

With more movies being produced since the early 80s and revenues relatively flat, there is a bigger premium than ever on being No.1 on the first weekend. Figures are adjusted for inflation, in 1997 dollars.

The New York Times