posted 02-22-2010 12:21 PM                    

quote: Matt Fields

---

Fox sued a dinner theatre for requiring a food minimum, saying that they were entitled to a percentage of the food if it was required for admission.

---

posted 02-22-2010 04:21 PM                   

quote: Chad Souder

---

They do argue - and they win. Every theatre pays film rental on the glasses rental, 3D upcharge, or whatever they call it. Every theatre (or at least the major chains) fought with the studios on this issue - and lost. It's settled and doesn't look to change anytime soon. Maybe it's different in Spain, but that's how it's going to stay here.

---

Don't get me wrong. This is DIFFERENT from the 3D surcharge. You DO charge a 3D surcharge included in the ticket price and split it with the distributor.

You just give the customer the OPTION to bring his own pair of glasses or SELL them a new pair, if they so WISH at free will. If they don't want it, they can still purchase the ticket just fine, with its 3D surcharge intact, but you warn them they'll be better off buying the 2D version, as it'll be less blurry

I don't know elsewhere, but there is no way studios will win anything remotely like that in Spain.

Customers are NOT required to buy food or buy graduated glasses or buy hats or buy binoculars to watch a film. If they want to, all those items are available for sale at the lobby, ebay or elsewhere. The studios just provides the film.

A different thing would be if they were forced to buy the items. Then I agree with the studios. But they are not. You can argue that without 3D glasses they can't (really) enjoy the film, as it looks blurry without them. The same as people who need graduated glasses or hearing aids. But the consumer doesn't have to buy a different pair of glasses everytime. That, I'm sure, any judge will agree with.

They buy the glasses once, and then go enjoy all the 3D movies they want.

I doubt the studios will make a lot of fuzz about the (forced) sale of glasses as there is no money in it for them. The glasses have a fixed cost and the money goes neither to the distributor nor to the theater, but to the glasses reseller/manufacturer. Selling them separate doesn't significantly affect the distributor, while it allows the theater to make a small extra profit from a SALES act. Last I checked, when you sold something, you were allowed by the law to make a profit from the act of the sale to cover the cost of the merchandise, the cost of labor, the taxes and enjoy anything left over from the transaction.

You don't buy the glasses nor the popcorn from the distributor, nor have you any reason to split any profits from its SALE to them.

What MAY be illegal and you may get sued about, is a customer complaining he already has a pair of 3D glasses that he purchased on ebay (or elsewhere, there are "designer" 3D glasses available) and you are forcing him to pay for another (inferior) pair every single time he goes to your theater to watch a film that he can watch just fine because he already has a pair glasses.

posted 02-24-2010 10:37 PM                       

quote:

---

You just give the customer the OPTION to bring his own pair of glasses or SELL them a new pair, if they so WISH at free will. If they don't want it, they can still purchase the ticket just fine, with its 3D surcharge intact,

---

posted 02-25-2010 01:48 AM                    

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

Could a dinner theatre avoid the problem by putting the ticket prices up and providing 'free' basic food items e.g soft drinks and small bites e.g. olives? You'd have to pay a cut to the distributor but it might offset the losses they make from people not buying food.

---