|
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
|
Author
|
Topic: LOOK vs AMC
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-23-2015 05:31 PM
quote: Gerry Lopez, AMC
“There are 600-plus exhibitors in this country,” he told the paper. “There are three or four exhibitors who are irritated by it. My guess is they have made some bad business calls and they’re trying to figure out a way out of a bad situation by alleging stuff and in some cases going to court.”
LOOK made some bad business calls? What kind of rope was Gerry smoking? LOOK was built in that part of North Dallas first. AMC's location there is the late comer, yet acting entitled to all the choice movie releases.
By the way, AMC's Prime screen at that 9-plex is apparently the only Prime theater AMC has which is not equipped with Dolby Atmos. Two auditoriums at LOOK are equipped with Dolby Atmos. In fact, LOOK is the only theater location in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex with multiple Atmos-equipped screens.
That's something to keep in mind with these big event releases like Avengers: Age of Ultron. It would sound better at LOOK since its Atmos mix could be played there. At the AMC Prime screen down the street it's going to be in conventional 5.1 or 7.1, but cost $16 per ticket. LOOK's ticket prices aren't that high.
quote:
LOOK has launched an online petition that says “you should choose where you see a movie, not AMC.” And a few weeks ago, Stephenson took his fight with AMC to the movie-makers, sending studio chiefs a missive in which he says Paramount has decided to “end clearances in the Dallas, Texas area between Look Cinema and AMC’s Village on the Parkway 9.” He also writes that “AMC is using clearances as a competitive weapon to prevent new market entrants from building near AMC theaters.”
I wouldn't be surprised to see Paramount doing LOOK a favor or two. LOOK arguably had one of the best showcases to see Paramount's release of Interstellar in 5-perf 70mm. The theater owner spent a bunch of money altering the booth to fit the 70mm gear alongside the d-cinema gear.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-25-2015 12:24 PM
Even in the days of film, I disagreed with exclusive zones. At least the studios could make the argument that they were spending more on prints just to split the same audience.
The problem is that the practice doesn't allow higher quality theatres to win a competition. Their success is reliant on what product split they get.
Back in the early 90's, I worked at a GCC location and there was a Wometco literally across the street. We had much better presentation (except for the mono in the 3 smallest houses), had a newer, nicer, cleaner building and provided MUCH better customer service.
People would go out of their way to tell us how much more they liked our theatre and how much they hated when they had to go to the Wometco. However, due to the anti competitive zone system, we couldn't "win" the competition. I can guarantee if we were allowed to play day and date, our location would have been expanded and they would have ended up closing. Then somebody would have gotten a great location when GCC went bankrupt.
In the digital age, this practice needs to end. If the studio is still making VPF payments, I guess they have some leg to stand on but if somebody wants to build today and pays for all of their digital equipment, they should play whatever they want no matter where else it is playing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-12-2015 02:35 PM
This is a pretty big story, and I thought about creating a new thread for it alone, but since it's been chewed on for quite a while here, I'll put it here. So, how's that old expression go ... "Hold on to your hats -- It's gonna be a bumpy ride!" Seems like these little exhibitor altercations have caught the attention of the Big Boys, and now it will play out in Federal court. This could get interesting:
quote:
U.S. steps up scrutiny of movie distribution
By Richard Verrier -- Los Angeles Times -- May 12, 2015
At a time when the box office is booming, the business practices of the nation's largest theater chains are coming under growing scrutiny by the federal government.
The Department of Justice recently ordered Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. and Cinemark Holdings Inc. to supply documents as part of a widening investigation into whether the largest theater chains violated federal antitrust laws, three people familiar with the investigation said.
The government is examining allegations from independent theater owners across the country that the big chains are using their market clout to block smaller rivals from receiving first-run movies.
The issuance of civil investigative demands, or administrative subpoenas, signals a significant escalation in the Justice Department probe, which launched several months ago but has accelerated in recent weeks.
The department also has assembled a task force of attorneys and economists to examine a business practice known as clearances, license agreements in which theaters obtain permission from studios to exclusively show first-run movies in their theaters within certain zones, thereby blocking nearby rivals from playing the same movie at the same time.
Task force members already interviewed executives from at least three independent theaters in Florida, Texas and Kansas, people with knowledge of the probe said. This week they are expected to meet with executives with Cobb Theatres, a Birmingham, Ala.-based chain with 20 theaters.
The investigation is being closely watched in the exhibition industry and in Hollywood because it could force changes in how major motion pictures are distributed and lead to costly fines for the big chains.
"This is the sort of thing that antitrust is particularly worried about," said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School and an expert on antitrust law. "Do we have a few dominant players entering into deals that make it harder for independent companies to establish themselves and gain ground?"
Industry insiders expect the government's investigation will last at least six months to a year.
Although violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act are subject to criminal penalties, the Justice Department would more likely file a civil lawsuit against theaters that could be resolved through a consent decree. Such a decree could include fines and possibly an injunction that would bar use of blanket clearances.
The government investigation could also open the door to more antitrust lawsuits, in which plaintiffs can receive treble damages.
AMC, Cinemark and Regal declined to comment. But theater and some studio executives have previously defended the use of clearances, contending they provide an efficient way for studios to allocate movies and protect competing theaters from diluting their grosses by having too many film runs in a given area.
"One has to remember that film clearances, they've existed for many years and we believe they have because they are beneficial to the studios, they are beneficial to exhibition and they are beneficial to consumers," Regal Entertainment Chief Executive Amy Miles said in a recent conference call with analysts.
The use of clearances developed after a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1948 that required studios to divest their ownership in movie theaters. Clearances were initially seen as a way to guarantee that small, independent theaters would gain access to first-run films, allowing the industry to grow rapidly.
But as the industry has increasingly consolidated — about half of all theater screens are owned by three companies — tensions between large chains and independent theater chains have heightened. Because they control so many screens, big chains have more leverage with studios in terms of where and when movies play across their circuits.
In 2006, the owners of the Palme d'Or, a seven-screen specialty theater in Palm Desert, sued Texas-based Cinemark, the nation's third-largest chain.
Flagship Theatres, whose owners include "Breaking Bad" star Bryan Cranston, alleged that Cinemark, which operates a cinema in nearby Rancho Mirage, was "circuit dealing" by threatening to retaliate against movie studios that booked films in the Palme d'Or. The case is pending.
In court filings, Cinemark has argued that its business practices are lawful and that the company did not have sufficient strength in the Coachella Valley market to stifle competition.
Another legal dispute erupted last year when Cobb Theatres sued AMC in U.S. District Court in Georgia. Cobb, which operates 20 theaters, accused AMC of using its "monopoly power" to block some first-run movies from being screened at upscale cinema and dining complex in Brookhaven, a suburb of Atlanta. The suit alleges that AMC convinced studios to give two nearby AMC theaters in Buckhead preferential treatment.
AMC denied the allegations and moved to dismiss the case. A federal judge in March allowed it to proceed.
The chain has been especially aggressive in enforcing clearances in the three years since China's Dalian Wanda Group acquired AMC for $2.6 billion.
AMC sought clearances for a dozen theaters, including cinemas in Harlem and La Jolla, that it viewed as "predatory competitors," according to an internal memo obtained by The Times.
The Leawood, Kan., chain has been investing heavily in upgrading its theaters with new amenities as well as opening cinemas that offer premium food and beverage service. The expansion has put it at odds with new independent theaters that also are targeting affluent customers with luxury services.
Among them is Look Cinemas in Dallas, Texas.
Veteran industry executive Tom Stephenson and his partners invested $20 million to open a luxury 11-screen theater in May 2013 in an affluent suburb of Dallas at which patrons can order food and drinks in plush recliners.
But Stephenson says Look Cinemas, which was included in AMC's list of "predatory competitors," has been starved of blockbuster movies such as "Avengers: Age of Ultron."
In a recent letter to studio executives, he complained that AMC was using clearances to steer business to an AMC venue that opened last fall.
"What AMC has done is say, 'I can use this to help take production away from smaller theaters,'" Stephenson said."They're using it as a weapon."
IPic Entertainment, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based chain that operates 11 luxury theaters — including locations in Pasadena and Westwood — also has contacted the Justice Department. IPic alleges that Regal and AMC have used the threat of clearances to thwart competition.
Hamid Hashemi, CEO of IPic, said he was in negotiations with a developer to open a theater in a suburb of Dallas last summer when he learned that AMC had sent a letter to studio distribution executives saying the proposed IPic theater would be in "substantial competition" with a smaller AMC multiplex two miles away that didn't have similar services. In the letter, AMC asked studios to approve clearances in "that particular film licensing zone."
AMC and Dolby are teaming up to build 100 high-tech theaters
On the same day, Hashemi said studio distribution executives told him they had received a similar clearance request from Regal involving a separate 500-seat theater under construction in Houston.
"Clearances are legal, but the use of clearances as a threat to preempt competition, that's another story," Hashemi said.
Rudyard Coltman opened a state-of-the-art $25-million multiplex in Overland Park, Kan., last May. The Cinetopia-18 includes a restaurant, extra-wide seats where patrons can order food and drinks, and a 75-foot-wide Imax screen. But Coltman says AMC, which operates a theater less than two miles away, is using its buying power to keep premium large format films like "Fast & Furious 7" and "Avengers" away from Cinetopia. As a result, he said, business is 50% below projections.
"All year long we've been denied the majority of these pictures," Coltman said. "We've gotten killed by clearances."
AMC Chief Executive Gerry Lopez defended his company's use of clearances.
"The fact of the matter is we are playing by rules that have been long established," Lopez told The Times last month. "There are 600-plus exhibitors in this country. There are three or four exhibitors who are irritated by it. My guess is they have made some bad business calls."
Original article was here: web page
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-12-2015 04:06 PM
The Big Chains, whoever they are at the time, have been doing this since about 1920, and been getting sued over and over. Sometimes the studios/distributors get pulled into the suit, but they, too, always get around it. Most are just able to outlive and outspend the smaller guys.
Can't feel too bad for Cobb, in 1983 they and Carmike and one other Chain (Regal?) split up Alabama. One day there were two or three chains in town, the next day only one. Nothing was ever done about it.
As to Mike's question, who says they are operating for the benefit of the consumer? That sort of thinking went out about 1980;>
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Dailey
Film Handler
Posts: 6
From: Overland Park, KS
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 05-13-2015 12:11 PM
"Rudyard Coltman opened a state-of-the-art $25-million multiplex in Overland Park, Kan., last May. The Cinetopia-18 includes a restaurant, extra-wide seats where patrons can order food and drinks, and a 75-foot-wide Imax screen. But Coltman says AMC, which operates a theater less than two miles away, is using its buying power to keep premium large format films like "Fast & Furious 7" and "Avengers" away from Cinetopia. As a result, he said, business is 50% below projections."
Once again, someone doesn't know what they are talking about. The Cinetopia definitely does not have an IMAX auditorium. Three of the screens are nearly IMAX size though. The AMC he speaks of - the Leawood Town Center 20 - does have an IMAX audtitorium. Was Coltman misdescribing his own complex? But otherwise I wholeheartedly agree that it's wrong what AMC is doing here.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic