quote:

---

I think you will find that all double features are supposed to be from the same studio. Otherwise, they call it "product splitting" - which as far as I know, is still basically illegal.

---

I thought product splitting was when several exhibitors get together in a specific market and divy up the studio's release schedule among themselves, thereby eliminating a bidding war. Only one theatre would submit a bid for a blockbuster film. Thnere were a number of anti-trust cases brought by the studios to fight this common practice back in the seventies-early 80's.

It used to not be uncommon for theatres and drive-ins to book a second feature from a distributor different from the main attraction. Even Disney films oftentimes played with another company's feature. By the late 60's though, more and more first-run films were being paired up with the same distributor's earlier release.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 01-23-2003, 12:30 AM:
 
At the Skyline Drive-In (Shelton, Wash.), our double features are all from the same distributor.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-23-2003, 12:33 AM:
 
Occassionally, in Ontario, we're allowed to run product from two different distributors. Usually when agreeing to run 'older' product that is starting to dry up. In these cases I belive that we just split the payments between distributors (so they each get 20-30%).
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-23-2003, 12:49 AM:
 
Paul L., you might be right. I was basing my comment on what I also heard as product splitting or splitting the screen. Maybe there is a difference, and I got it the two confused. If I am wrong, I'll certainly stand corrected.

Anytime the all mighty buck is involved, someone wants their share of it whether they deserve it or not. Company "X" will bitch about Company "Y" and demand a bigger cut because they think their product is better and the people come to watch it instead of the other feature and vice versa.

Well, maybe it really doesn't matter. With most of the crap that is released, maybe they should pay us to watch it.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-23-2003, 10:34 AM:
 
I should have clarified that even in the 60's, the second feature from another distributor wasn't a first-run (in most cases). That feature would have already made the rounds through the cycle (first, second, sub-run, drive-in) before being made available for doubling up with the same or other studio's product, usually for a flat rental fee. (Although in smaller towns with one or two singles, both features very well may have been first-run to that market) And in most cases, the second feature wasn't even part of the same genre. Musicals often played with westerns (example - Song of Norway (Cinerama Releasing) with True Grit (PAR). This was seen as a way to bring in a larger audience (i.e. - something for everyone). I think it was AIP that started the trend of similiar genre double features.

Now in the late 70's, it wasn't uncomon for a local drive-in in Bakersfield to actually book two current first-runs day-and-date with a walk-in, creating a double feature, but in this multiplex era, the nature of bookings were in transition.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-23-2003, 11:16 AM:
 
The way it worked back in the 80's when I worked at the drive in was this. if the features were from two different distributors you took the total box office take and devided it in half and reported those numbers for each distributor. if they were the same distributor then the total numbers were reported on the main feature playing.
 

---

Posted by Frank Rapisardi (Member # 435) on 01-23-2003, 02:16 PM:
 
At our drive in we usually played a first run (for percentage)and an older second run for a flat rate.Usually they were from the same company but not always.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-23-2003, 04:01 PM:
 
In my experience, we did first run same film co and first run different film co where the total was split 50/50 between the films.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-23-2003, 04:06 PM:
 
I remember Roger Corman remarking once on a double first-run experiment with one of his features. A drive-im wanted to double up a New World release with a similiar themed Columbia release on a double first-run engagement. He said the terms agreed upon were 35 percent for each feature. His sales team initally said no, but he saw it as an experiment, that if it did well, they might go with Columbia on this double feature in other markets. Anyway, the drive-in reported a gross to New World for the week that was considerably LOWER (almost half) than what they reported to Columbia He said it made him want to know what the REAL gross was that week.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-23-2003, 05:00 PM:
 
What happens today includes parts of several of your impressions here.

When I first started working in drive-ins, back in the mid '60s, many pictures were flat rated, if not when new, then certainly by the time they made their way to the drive-in.

Eventually however, main features (at least those worth playing) became percentage-based.

The film companies used to do a courtesy to drive-ins by offering a low-cost (read "flat") older feature to drive-ins as a companion to the main show they booked. We booked that way up through the late '80s. Generally, the studios allowed the flat charge (usually between $50 and $150) to be deducted from the percentage paid on the first show, as long as that picture was from the same studio.

Eventually however, the studios demanded percentages from pretty much any feature that hadn't hit the video market.

The percentages used to be a fairly even split. Today however, the studios are being relatively creative in how they apply their percentages, mostly out of an unusual display of cooperation with drive-in exhibitors. Recognizing that they want a much higher percentage for their main shows, the studios are allowing more flexibility in terms of what percentage is settled upon for the co-feature, generally bringing the two pictures in at acceptable total percentages.

Because pretty much all shows are percentage-based now, you tend to see more situations where one show is from a different distributor than the other. As the percentage for each show is based on the total gross, it doesn't matter as much as it might otherwise. Remember, it isn't a "double feature" if you have to purchase a second ticket for the other show. If you don't have separate admissions to apply to each show, you have to apply what you do make to the whole presentation. This contradicts Paul Linfesty's story a bit, because there is no way to honestly split the gross on a double feature.

Another thing that is a benefit to the distribs as regards drive-ins, and tends to make them a bit more cooperative: Let's say you make a hypothetical double feature of "MIB-2" at it's peak with a picture like "Pluto Nash" at its worst. At the end of the week, your boxoffice report would reflect the same gross for both pictures, even though everyone knows the vast majority of the audience came in because of MIB-2. As one admit pays for both shows, both pictures get to claim the gross, even though the percentage they draw from each is lower than would be the case if you booked them separately in an indoor. Since the dollar figures you see published are reflective of gross income and not percentages paid, this props up a lot of pretty weak titles.

Class is dismissed

[ 01-23-2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Jack Ondracek ]
 

---