Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LOOK vs AMC

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » LOOK vs AMC (Page 3)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

Author

Topic: LOOK vs AMC

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 10-21-2014 04:41 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've never visited a Cinetopia location before, but I'd be willing to bet the new Cinetopia theater in the Kansas City metro is a damned sight better than the AMC location nearby that's screwing it out of a lot of first run movies.

And you would be correct!!

That's what upsets me the most. Any given high quality independent with such luxuries as masking get screwed out by generic, advertising laden, nasty wal-martplexes.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-21-2014 09:15 PM

The situation reminds me a little of the allocation arrangement that existed here in Lawton back in the 1990's and early 2000's between the Carmike 8 and the older Cache 8 (which changed hands between Litchfield, United Artists and Hollywood Theaters over the years).

That allocation setup had movie studios booking their movies evenly between the two theaters for the most part. A studio like Paramount would release one movie at the Cache 8 and then place its next release at the Carmike 8. Once in awhile a movie that was supposed to go to the Carmike 8 would end up at the Cache 8. One theory why was the Cache 8 had more seats even though the Carmike was a much better theater. The Carmike sometimes got movies that might have gone to the Cache 8 if the rotation was followed strictly. For instance, all the Star Wars special edition movies and prequels played at the Carmike since it had two THX certified auditoriums at the time.

Anyway, I hated the Cache 8 theater with a passion. If a movie I wanted to see played there I either saw that movie at a theater in Oklahoma City, Dallas or elsewhere -or I just waited to watch it on DVD at home. I refused to endorse that bad theater's standards of practice with my dollars.

Unfortunately, in the case of chains like AMC, Regal and others using unfair Walmart style tactics against smaller yet superior quality competitors: most movie theater customers don't care. They'll drive to the nearest theater showing the movie they want to see regardless of the presentation quality. The customers don't seem to care that they're screwing themselves by not being more informed and discriminating about where they spend their money.

OTOH, movie theater customers do get affected by poor customer service and they do remember that. Couple poor customer service with the high prices we're seeing for tickets and concessions and that's a great recipe to get customers to stay at home in droves.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 10-21-2014 09:26 PM

I like to think that people don't know what they're missing. I have a dream of opening a brand new second run theater in town with all the proper presentation fixins, no ads, etc etc. I dream of handily outgrossing the first run theater. I dream of content staying only the absolute minimum amount of time in the first run before coming my way because everyone is waiting for it to go the better theater.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-22-2014 08:04 AM

If you open it next door to me, you already got one customer [Wink]

quote: Steve Guttag
Wouldn't it be a hoot if a studio sued a chain like AMC for Monopolistic practices?

Wouldn't it be better if a large bunch of those independents that are affected by those selective release tactics to sue the studios and AMC?

As I see it, it's primarily the fault of the studios for giving in to those kind of tactics. It sure is foul play by AMC, but they are "just" fighting their competition. The studios are, in my opinion, even more at fault for giving in to those bluffing games.

Because that's what it is, a bluff. Even if AMC would boycott new releases in those locations, how long do you think they will be able to maintain it? And how much money will the studio actually lose? Those who cannot see it at AMC will surely find their way to the theaters that are showing it...

I guess it's this what those anti-monopoly laws were actually made for, so maybe it's time for action?

| IP: Logged

Frank B. McLaughlin
Film Handler

Posts: 76
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 2011

posted 10-22-2014 09:19 AM

Now take a look at the studio side: these megaplex chain locations can play EVERYTHING right down the release schedule. All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere. Just what can your small complex do? There are no longer enough indies in the various markets to fill any void - the chains have blown them all out. And just try proving that in court.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 10-22-2014 10:53 AM

quote: Frank B. McLaughlin
All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere. Just what can your small complex do?

Nothing... expect hope the studios got smart and stood up to the bullies.

Can you imagine AMC saying they wouldn't play "Avengers: Age of Ultron"? Neither can I, especially with all those IMAX digital screens. Disney has all the power. If AMC doesn't like how Disney is allocating playdates for "Avengers," AMC isn't going to say "Well, then, we're not going to play 'Tomorrowland' or 'Inside Out' or 'Ant-Man' or 'The Jungle Book.'" AMC isn't going to watch as 100% of the area gross goes to LOOK for every one of these movies in this one area. If push came to shove, and Disney said "Fine, if you don't like that your new theatre is going to day and date with this already established theatre in this area, then you don't get the product," AMC will go "Oh, okay. We'll day and date with LOOK." Because 40-60% of the area gross is better than 0%.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-22-2014 11:19 AM

quote: Frank B. McLaughlin
Now take a look at the studio side: these megaplex chain locations can play EVERYTHING right down the release schedule. All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere. Just what can your small complex do? There are no longer enough indies in the various markets to fill any void - the chains have blown them all out. And just try proving that in court.

I highly doubt that is going to happen. All the studio cares about is which theater (AMC vs LOOK) is going to make them more money on each release they have. Having the movies play day and date at both theaters is a really stupid idea, it just gives the studio even more power and effectively ends long play runs(an advantage for the exhibitor) at a given location and it will further increase the studios take at the box office. It will also drive prices lower and one of the theaters (most likely LOOK) will be out of business soon than later. Also, people are not going to choose LOOK over AMC if the AMC prices are lower.

The LOOK prices are pretty high, $15.00 for 70mm IMAX in (Evolution) with a $1.50 ticket convenience fee. The LOOK 70MM screen seats 156 people, the other auditoriums are smaller at 136 seats, and 56 seats for Interstellar on opening night, to me this looks like a slam dunk case where the studio will simply prefer AMC over LOOK.

quote: Frank B. McLaughlin
All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere.

This only works if there is no competition as well as limited or at capacity screens across a network or region. The power is then in the exhibitors hands.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-22-2014 04:31 PM

quote: Edward Havens
Nothing... expect hope the studios got smart and stood up to the bullies.

I'm pretty sure what they're doing is anti-competitive and rather illegal. They're clearly dividing the market and making illegal arrangements about it.

The problem is, you need to be able to stand up against it and I think it will only work if affected theaters unite in some kind of class action suit. You're never going to sit this out as a lonely player.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
All the studio cares about is which theater (AMC vs LOOK) is going to make them more money on each release they have.

What?! Shouldn't they care about making the most money with any given release in a certain area? How would they make less money if multiple competing theaters play the same movies?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Having the movies play day and date at both theaters is a really stupid idea, it just gives the studio even more power and effectively ends long play runs(an advantage for the exhibitor) at a given location and it will further increase the studios take at the box office.

Care to explain what extra magic powers appear for studios from this more open playing field for competing movie theaters?

Also, this is your idea of competition and a free market? Our lords and masters decide who get's what, because of what? The greater good?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
It will also drive prices lower and one of the theaters (most likely LOOK) will be out of business soon than later. Also, people are not going to choose LOOK over AMC if the AMC prices are lower.

So, this whole premium PLF and D-IMAX stuff you've been defending is also bullshit then? Because people are not going to spend the extra dime for a "better" experience, price is the only differentiating factor?

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-22-2014 04:52 PM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
What?! Shouldn't they care about making the most money with any given release in a certain area? How would they make less money if multiple competing theaters play the same movies?

Marcel, you read too much into what I said. If the studio has to choose between two locations, they would choose the location that grosses more.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Care to explain what extra magic powers appear for studios from this more open playing field for competing movie theaters?

The two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem and the other is issue is LOOK is a luxury cinema with a limited number of available seats, AMC did the correct thing by saying that they will not be licensing the same movies as LOOK. AMC has the potential to move more people in and out of their theater just by seat count alone, when Avengers 2 comes out, the studio is going to want the max seats available. This gives AMC an advantage. The leverage is in the AMC court.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, this whole premium PLF and D-IMAX stuff you've been defending is also bullshit then? Because people are not going to spend the extra dime for a "better" experience, price is the only differentiating factor?

Marcel, AMC has the power to offer lower prices and lower concession prices than LOOK, even though it could be considered predatory pricing, AMC could drive LOOK out of business pretty quickly. LOOK would have to eventually lower their prices as would clearly not be able to maintain their market share by offering the same films as AMC.

The PLF thing is irrelevant, LOOK does not have anything that would be considered PLF compared to AMC Prime.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 10-22-2014 05:02 PM

It's not just the digital low cost of distribution that should change the model to allow neighboring theaters to show the movie. It's about single multiplexes these days showing new movies on a LOT of screens in the first week. So obviously, there is enough demand in the first week to support many screens in the same neighborhood. So why should one multiplex have to hog all those screens? with digital, is it really much different from Blockbuster video and Hollywood video in the same neighborhood stocking the same movie in the 90s?

As far as studios, it is in their interest to encourage these luxury chains because that would increase their revenue indirectly by making the final product more appealing to the consumer.

But Congress has been slacking off in recent years in terms of regulating anti competitive practices in all media(look at how few companies control so many cable channels). Time to encourage more competition. With what AMC is doing, doesn't it make a farce of the whole spirit of competition. I mean how would AMC like it if studios were allowed once again to own theaters?

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-22-2014 05:30 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, you read too much into what I said. If the studio has to choose between two locations, they would choose the location that grosses more.

And, why exactly, besides those anti-competitive arrangements everybody here is talking about, would the studio even have to choose between two locations in the same area? Are we close to running out of bits? Does the presence of multiple hard disks containing the same movie increase the risk of uncontrolled black holes appearing out of nowhere?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem and the other is issue is LOOK is a luxury cinema with a limited number of available seats, AMC did the correct thing by saying that they will not be licensing the same movies as LOOK. AMC has the potential to move more people in and out of their theater just by seat count alone, when Avengers 2 comes out, the studio is going to want the max seats available. This gives AMC an advantage. The leverage is in the AMC court.

And if both theaters would get a copy of The Avengers 2, some people that would have shown up at AMC would show up at LOOK, because they like it better. LOOK might even attract customers that would otherwise not go to AMC. The end result will be: at least the same amount of tickets sold in the same period, probably even a few more.

So, what leverage exactly?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, AMC has the power to offer lower prices and lower concession prices than LOOK, even though it could be considered predatory pricing, AMC could drive LOOK out of business pretty quickly. LOOK would have to eventually lower their prices as would clearly not be able to maintain their market share by offering the same films as AMC.

The PLF thing is irrelevant, LOOK does not have anything that would be considered PLF compared to AMC Prime.

Last time I checked the only requirements for PLF seem to be unmasked screens, 2K projectors, someone pushing the volume a little too far and some whiz bang, bullshit marketing.

Many theaters stay in business despite competition of some major chain, especially because they tend to be cheaper on both tickets and concessions and actually care about the service they're offering. But if they're denied access to certain important first run features, no wonder they're getting squashed by Evilcorp themselves.

| IP: Logged

Mike Rivest
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 185
From: Montréal QC Canada
Registered: Nov 2009

posted 10-22-2014 05:38 PM

Looked what happened to AMC in Canada!. Cineplex always had the better movies.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-22-2014 06:05 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The PLF thing is irrelevant, LOOK does not have anything that would be considered PLF compared to AMC Prime.

Terry, you ought to look up the specifics about LOOK Cinemas before making claims about what they have and don't have in their theaters. This speciality theater is serving 3 different niches: small luxury "director's suite" style screening rooms, in theater dining rooms and big screen experiences. LOOK's two "Evolution" screens are comparable to other digital big screen theater concepts. Both Evolution screens happen to feature Dolby Atmos, making LOOK Cinemas the only theater in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro to have more than one Atmos-equipped screen under the same roof. There's a lot of so-called "PLF" screens that don't have any next-gen sound format. The new AMC location opening nearby will have only one "Prime" screen.

BTW, the "PLF" label is a crock of shit. None of the digital concepts going around anywhere qualifies as "large format." Film based IMAX? Yeah, that's large format. Even 5-perf 70mm can be considered "large format." Nothing about digital is large format. It's the same HDTV resolution image just blown up on a bigger screen.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 10-22-2014 06:19 PM

@ Mike R, AMC did split product at three GTA locations while one was clear and the flagship was blocked on 90% of titles. Empire was also blocked at Square One.

You obviously remember when Cineplex split distributors with Famous Players? Everything was better back then as THX, 70mm, digital sound was much more compelling.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-22-2014 06:24 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem

There are some locations where it doesn't matter. I remember reading once about two complexes in New York, I think, that were less than a block from each other...but both played the same movies. They competed on their actual merits, not by forcing the public to choose one or the other.

This is all about one chain, AMC, trying to corner the market. If both cinemas get the same movies, then everyone else (moviegoers, LOOK Cinema, the studios) benefit but AMC loses out on some ticket sales. The studios will not lose one red cent UNLESS AMC decides to not play their movie in some other locations as "punishment." Thus the only thing AMC has going for it is sheer size.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.