Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: FOX and independent first run theatres

This is topic FOX and independent first run theatres in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001402

Posted by Fred Schoenfeld (Member # 2632) on 03-25-2005, 10:10 AM:

I am looking for other first run theatre operators who have had a bad experience dealing with 20th Century Fox. We no longer play their product since we were screwed on STAR WARS, EPISODE I by being required to play and pay more than the chain houses in our same market. We are a single screen operation and have one of the highest grossing houses in the entire market, but that doesn't seem to matter to FOX.

We would be interested in playing the last STAR WARS, but FOX will not deal with us. If you have been screwed or slighted by FOX, please contact me so that I can see if it is only me or are they doing it to other independents as well.

Thanks for any help we can get! [Smile]

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-25-2005, 10:21 AM:

My friend has a single screen and he played the last Star Wars stinkeroo. It did great for two days then completely died. He was stuck playing this turkey for 4 weeks to empty houses and no shows.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-25-2005, 11:26 AM:

Since Fox scrapped their "small town policy" a few years ago, we have played several of their titles on the break -- but neither of the STAR WARS movies. They would not budge off of the four-week minimum and that's just too long for us.

We don't have an answer yet about the new Star Wars, but hopefully they'll be so intent on breaking every record that they'll decide to take 2-week dates in small towns, the way they did with ROBOTS. Lucas has the final call on that, I suppose.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-25-2005, 12:36 PM:

In my area of central Pennsylvania Fox had a 6 week minimum for SWEPII. After about two weeks it died and exhibitors began clammoring for the ability to pull out of the commitment. Fox allowed a pull off in the form of "buy-out" by paying the committed percentages for the weeks that you wanted to pull off times (I think) the weekend gross of the last reported week that you actually played.

Some theatres took the buy out. Others did not. About 6 months later Fox quietly refunded the buy out monies to those who had taken the deal. Those who did not choose to take the buyout and actually continued to play the picture for the full 6 weeks got nothing.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-25-2005, 03:42 PM:

Fred:

How do you know what terms the "chain house" in your market got for the picture?

Posted by Fred Schoenfeld (Member # 2632) on 03-25-2005, 04:47 PM:

quote: Mike Spaeth

How do you know what terms the "chain house" in your market got for the picture?

Mike:
I have been told by a number of sources that FOX refunded penalty billings for some of their big customers (see Jonathan's thread above)after they were billed. Also, the FOX division manager insisted that I pay a two week penalty and if I sent in my check, "we might refund it to you" (his words).

The bigger issue is the policy of allowing a multiplex to open on many screens and then allowing them to come off on the multiple screens after only a few weeks and finally holding on a single screen to satisfy the contract playing terms; while making single screen houses hold the film for the entire 12 weeks (as was the case in our market of Norfolk/VA Beach, VA).

If anyone remembers the Consent Decrees of 1954, the Justice Department and the federal court ruled that "each motion picture MUST be sold 'picture by picture' and 'house by house'" In other words, the distributors can not force you to play one picture in order to play another ('picture by picture') nor can they require you to give them one theatre (house) in order to play another theatre (house). As I see it, FOX violates this by stating that the 'minimum run is 12 weeks' (as in our market); but then allows the big guys to pull the print as soon as the gross drops on the multiple screens.

I know most of you folks work in multiscreen theatres and I certainly don't object to this practice... however, when a single screen (which in most cases) is in competition with a multiplex is not given the same opportunity to take the print off when the gross drops, the issue is one of fairness to the single screen guy.

Over the years I have had to take both the distributors and some of the biggest chains to court over unfair trade practices. In each case I have prevailed. All of you should understand that our industry was started by INDIVIDUALS who worked hard to develop a single screen idea into the many chains that are out there today. If we allow our industry to become controlled by our supplier (i.e. distribution) then we can all kiss it goodbye! [Frown]

Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 03-25-2005, 05:23 PM:

Could the problem with Fox be a regional thing? In Oklahoma, Fox takes good care of small independent theatres. I've never had the problem described, nor have I heard of others having problems.

Posted by Fred Schoenfeld (Member # 2632) on 03-25-2005, 06:30 PM:

John:
In the spring prior to the opening of STAR WARS, EPISODE I, I was told that I could not book the film since I served food in my house. Never mind that I have played FOX product in this house for 10 years prior and have been a customer of FOX in my other houses since 1970.

I went to the trouble of traveling from Virginia to the FOX lot in LA and met with the three top guys there at the time. After the normal intro BS, they kept changing the story as to why I could not play SWEP I. First it was because we served beer & wine, then it was food (never mind that almost every theatre offers concessions!). Finally, they agreed only on the condition that we cut off all food and concession sales once the feature begins! I agreed; but what they failed to disclose to me was that they had booked every multiplex in my area on 5 screens!!

Needless to say, our grosses were dismal (compared to the full houses we had when we ran the re-issues (Episodes IV, V, VI) two years prior. Yet when the multis started coming off after week two, FOX refused to cut us any slack on our 12 week deal. This being the entire summer playing time put me in a dire financial position (not to mention the 4-70's; 4-60's; 4-50's & 4-40's on the film rental).

I wonder what would happen if every multiplex in this country that runs a title on multiple screens would be required to play out the entire contract on each and every screen AND be forced to keep the print on the SAME screen that it opened on? In effect this is what we are required to do!

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-26-2005, 04:08 PM:

That is a ridiculous assertion ... multiple prints are there because the PUBLIC demands them nowadays in today's now or never society. I don't ever go overboard on multiple prints (most I've played was 3), but requiring a 12-week run for them would be asinine. Unfortunately, 12 weeks in a single screen may not work in your market ... so like it or not the choice is play or not play ... you know the deal up front, take it or leave it.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-26-2005, 04:23 PM:

The inequity stems from most film distributors refusal to recognize that the first run single screen indoor market has really evolved into a specialty status with special needs and must be treated differently from the multi-plex. It took many years for the distributors to recognize this fact for drive-ins.

In many ways the single screen indoor is much like a drive-in. I have been advocating the same treatment of single screen as drive ins for many years.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-26-2005, 04:31 PM:

That's a very good point.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-27-2005, 01:21 PM:

We wanted to play EP-II on the break. They would not book it for less than 4 weeks. If we had gone ahead, we would have been looking at empty chairs in weeks 3 and 4. As it was, we had to wait until week 8 for a one-week booking... that's far longer than we usually wait for any movie, even a blockbuster.

If they had let us play the film for 2 weeks on the break, we'd have done 3 times the business, plus paid them top dollar terms as opposed to week 8 terms. We could have then circuited the print to another town 45 miles away for another 2 weeks. Fox's precious "screen count" number would have stayed the same. Both theatres would have had great crowds and paid top dollar rentals. As it was, our gross on that movie was cut probably by two thirds, and they got probably about 25% of the rental dollars they could have gotten from us. The print we could have used sat playing to near empty houses in some big city somewhere in those last two or three weeks.

By the time we got the movie, the word was out that it wasn't that great and our boxoffice suffered for it. Many people decided to skip it or just wait for the video.

Sometimes I wish the distributors would join the real world, they might find out they like it.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-27-2005, 09:16 PM:

Mike, have you tried booking with your neighboring theatre as a group/"consortium"?

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2005, 12:52 AM:

We both have the same booker. I'll have to ask him about that -- it's worth a try I guess.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-28-2005, 02:42 AM:

Mike,

The arguments you put forth are well stated and compelling. Do you talk to the Fox bookers? Or if you do and they claim their hands are tied, have you ever gone to some VP of Domestic Distribution and presented these facts? It seems to me that distribution cannot be deaf to such arguments, seeing as how you are explaining how THEY, as well as you, are missing out on making bucks by their booking policies. After all, in the end you are both partners....you're both trying to get the best return from each engagement. If you make money, they make money. They can't be oblivious to that. It might just be that the regional manager or booker is just taking the easy way out, i.e., going with the stated corporate policy rather than taking the time and initiative to go back to headquarters and ask if the policy can be adapted for this local situation (yours). If some bean counter in corporate hears that a policy is costing Fox money, you actually might be able to get a more sympathetic (and greedy) ear and policy change. Corporate doesn't take kindly when some regional manager costs them money by being lazy rather than creative.

It would be worth a try.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-28-2005, 01:23 PM:

This is the reason most single screens have gone out of business...

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 03-28-2005, 01:26 PM:

Is anyone passing SW 3 to make a statement, if the terms end up being unfair like last time?

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-28-2005, 01:34 PM:

If I were a single screen, I'd go with Longest Yard or Madagascar instead...

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-28-2005, 05:07 PM:

Unfortunately the only ones big enough to make a "statement" are the major chains. If i were to pass on my 22 screens ... wouldn't be a blip on the radar.