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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » LOOK vs AMC (Page 5)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Author Topic: LOOK vs AMC Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 10-25-2014 04:26 PM                     It is actually to the studio's benefit to have 8 screens divided among two nearby multiplexes for a single new movie than 8 screens in one megaplex. By dividing it up, you get more showcase screens. Otherwise, you will have something like the multiplex showing the movie in one of the smaller screens due to all the big screens being taken up. let's say two blockbusters release the same weekend. instead of one multiplex playing Film A on 6 screens and the second one playing FIlm B on another 6 screens, you could have each multiplex play both movies on fewer screens each, but more screens in total. More choice of showtimes and theater types for the people in the neighborhood. win - win .  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 10-25-2014 07:30 PM                     I've owned theatres in similar situations before. One thing I have not seen mentioned in this thread is that the competing theatres often pay higher film rental. We called it "The Competitive Deal" as opposed to the regular terms for a movie. The idea is "Pay our terms or the other theatre will".  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-18-2014 12:00 AM                     WFAA news video from tonight.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-18-2014 08:15 AM                        Not a single mention of 70mm. Think the meat puppet had a clue?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-19-2014 06:32 AM                     Well, the report wasn't really about film v.s. digital, so it might be forgiven. quote: For decades, standard industry practice has dictated that distributors allocated their movies between theaters that operate in close proximity to each other. Yeah, newsflash: the decades of print scarcity are over. Shouldn't be such a quote alone already be sufficient evidence in court of anti-competitive market manipulation being present? I was under the impression private cartels were officially outlawed some time ago...  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-19-2014 09:43 AM                     It seems to me the nail in the coffin for AMC's argument is their own Ontario, California, location. AMC operates the Ontario Mills 30 at Ontario Mills Shopping Center and Regal operates the Edwards Ontario Palace 22 across the street. Both theaters play the same movies. Your read that correctly. Fifty-two screens at one shopping center.  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 11-19-2014 09:06 PM                     Size-wise, that's #1 and #2 facing off with each other there.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-20-2014 06:48 AM                     The interesting thing is, they're actually doing a face off. An open confrontation, playing both the same releases apparently. As Regal and AMC are probably in the same boat, or rather, in the same luxury yacht, they apparently don't need to divide the releases between them in "competing markets". I guess their argument will be something like: The market there is sufficiently big to support 52 (!) screens within a few yards...  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-20-2014 09:28 AM                     That situation with Ontario Mills is very interesting and damning for AMC's argument to support the allocation concept. AMC could try to say the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex doesn't have as many people as the LA area, so the Regal & AMC situation with Ontario Mills is a very unique thing and not to be repeated anywhere else, except for maybe Midtown Manhattan in New York City. That argument falls apart when you visit the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, realize there's over 6 million people living in that area, and the Addison-North Dallas zone is one of the busiest areas of that whole region. There's more than enough market in that zone to support two rival 30-plex theaters playing the same content. The only way I see allocation making any sense at all is in smaller markets, but then there are exceptions even there.  |  IP: Logged Jason Burroughs Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 654 From: Allen, TX Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-20-2014 11:20 AM                     What I find amusing, and contradictory to AMC's stated position, is that there are 2 other theaters in close proximity to their new location that are already playing day & date with each other for at least a year. Venitian Cinemas 3.8 miles AMC Valley View 16 3.2 miles Look Cinemas .7 miles Flash back 20 years, all these theaters would be in the same "zone". AMC has not had an issue until they decided to open a location virtually across the street from an established location. What is AMC afraid of? Why be so noncompetitive? Perhaps they are afraid they over saturated an area that now has 40 screens that 20 years ago could only marginally support 20, without a significant population growth in the area? I don't have numbers but I would highly doubt that the Valley View theater produces anything but abysmal numbers, considering it is in a dead mall. With the exception of the Valley View location, all offer an upgraded experience to varying degrees.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 11-20-2014 01:16 PM                     quote: Jason Burroughs What is AMC afraid of? Why be so noncompetitive? I don't think AMC is afraid of anything, they just know that the L K cinemas will not be able to sustain operations if they do not have complete access to all of the product. It should be interesting but I think AMC will win the fight.  |  IP: Logged Jason Burroughs Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 654 From: Allen, TX Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-20-2014 01:48 PM                     Terry, who do you work for? I'm not in the industry any more, and have no dog in the fight. Even your statement lends to AMC being anti-competition in that their express desire is to drive an independent competitor out of business. I think we could all agree that AMC would not be taking this stance (or even had built this location) if LOOK had been a Cinemark or Regal instead.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 11-20-2014 02:00 PM                     AMC simply said they will not license films day and date with Look. So in essence it is up to the studio to choose either AMC or Look. I don't work for AMC but from the way I see it, AMC will make the studio more money, (just my opinion) and the studios will continue to give the product to AMC.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-20-2014 04:02 PM                     Terry constantly complains about the near monopoly of Cineplex in his area, the resulting inflated ticket prices and the mediocre quality which must be a direct result of lack of competition. Then again, he thinks it's completely OK for the biggest cinema chains to squash their competition via anti-competitive practices.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 11-20-2014 05:27 PM                     quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens AMC simply said they will not license films day and date with Look. So in essence it is up to the studio to choose either AMC or Look. I don't work for AMC but from the way I see it, AMC will make the studio more money, (just my opinion) and the studios will continue to give the product to AMC. The only way this would be a good thing would be if the AMC provides a superior product(presentation). The chances of that are slim to none. Even in that case, it wouldn't be ideal.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.