Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus

This is topic SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus 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=001961

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-20-2007, 08:10 AM:

Marcus Theatres are electing not to show SWEENY TODD due to the price quoted by the distributor, Paramount Pictures. No details were given.

Columbus Dispatch article here.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-20-2007, 09:05 AM:

Hmmnm....it's about time. Get a couple more chains to join suit and there goes the dictatorial power of the studios. What would a studio do if they could only open a picture in half the number of screens they usually bank on for their huge opening weekend? Seems to me if a consortium of the big theatre chains and owners were created (I mean one where they actually acted together in concert....like the studios have in the MPAA, not the spineless, wussy NATO), such a group could demand a lot more from the studios than theatres do now.

The very first thing such a consortium could do was simply say, if a studio doesn't agree that they will not release a title until x number of months after 80% of all theatres have finished playing it, they will not book it. Period. How different than the totally one-sided deals which theatres have to live with presently, where the studio can pretty much demand anything -- like a theatre must play a picture for so many weeks even if there are no patrons buying tickets.

Imagine a world in which the distributor has to sign the THEATRE'S Master Contract rather than the other way around. All it would take, my friends, are theatre owners with a set of balls and enough smarts to know how much power they really have. Let's see Paramount make their 100 million opening weekend for SWEENY TODD if they are relegated to distributing it to cable outlets and DVD rental stores, because it doen't meet the Theatre Owner's Consortium guidelines. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-20-2007, 10:09 AM:

Seems to me if a consortium of the big theatre chains and owners were created

That would be illegal. It has happened in the past and the theatres got fined for anti-trust violations.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-20-2007, 10:11 AM:

According to Box Office Mojo, Sweeney Todd is set to open on 1,000 screens this weekend.

I wonder if that is less than they were originally planning?

Here in Milwaukee, Marcus has made a lot of hay about not carrying the movie. It made the news outlets, and the non-Marcus theaters in the area (all four of them) are happily selling tickets to those who want to see the movie either because they always wanted to or they got interested as a result of the announcements by Marcus.

One theater that I work with was getting calls on Tuesday morning, asking if they were going to be showing it. I got their showtimes fast-tracked through the update process so that they would have that information online as quickly as possible.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2007, 10:24 AM:

Frank...check out the law on Collusion. Wikipedia where defintions are subject to popular vote...

"In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion."

A Cartel (also illegal) is:

"A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among firms. Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there are a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition. Competition laws forbid cartels."

Now you may say..."BUT that is what the STUDIOS are doing!" Yeah, prove it. Form an oranization that sets prices and it is easy. If you have a bunch of independant people coming to same result, that is something different. If Wal-Mart sells a widget for $3.94 and the store across the street drops their price on the same widget to $3.94 (from $4.50)...did they collude or did the other store just want to try and stay in business? Now if you can prove that Wal-Mart and the other Store had a meeting to "set prices" that would be to their economic advantage (siffle competition that would lower prices), then that would be illegal.

So if all if the theatre owners were to, on their own, come to the conclusion that they need to have 50/50 boxoffice splits (from day one) with 1-week minimum guarantee play dates, not release the movie to other avenues [home video]for 1-year....etc or they wouldn't book the films...then the studios would probably move in that direction (or cut out theatre exhibition all together). But it would REQUIRE all to independantly to come to such a conclusion and that no one caves...it is this caving that has gotten exhibitors into their current situation of very poor boxoffice deals. One person will always give up a percent or so here and there when drives the market into the studios hands...they have the goods YOU want. There are not that many studios...it is easier for them to effectly get their price.

Now Regal and AMC would not need to collude since they are such massive entities unto themselves. Either one or if both independantly came to the conclusion that they wanted better terms, they have a much greater liklihood of getting it (and probably do) because they talk with much more screen power...losing either one would be a huge market loss.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-20-2007, 10:47 AM:

The theatre chains/owners wouldn't necessarily have to "collude", but rather adopt the same policies and practices as their competition(once one or two of the big chains decide to flex some muscle) seperately and independently; much like the studios do when they draw up their master contracts.

As for a chain not picking up a major release, I remember when Regal didn't open (if memory serves) "The Prince of Egypt" on the break. The numbers were dismal and the studio quickly renegotiated.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-20-2007, 03:28 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
One person will always give up a percent or so here and there when drives the market into the studios hands...they have the goods YOU want.

This is the problem, right here.

There's no way that independently, all of the major chains are going to get defensive. And even if they did, there's always going to be one guy that cracks under the pressure.

Posted by Charles Caron (Member # 3247) on 12-20-2007, 09:40 PM:

Apparently Carmike is not breaking Sweeney in any of its Montana theatres...Interesting... [Confused]

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 12-20-2007, 09:57 PM:

I'll bet it's because they didn't feel it would perform as Paramount expects. There is so much blood letting & head chopping in the film that many will find it hard to stomach...based on what I've heard from those that have screened it.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 12-20-2007, 11:26 PM:

We, Carmike, didn't get it either. Well my theater didn't get it, I can't speak for the other Carmikes.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 12-21-2007, 02:58 PM:

By the way the terms from Paramount are no differant than they wanted for Bee Movie.

Paramount as of this past Monday was only making 1200 (35mm) prints. Sounds like a lot of spin from Markus.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-21-2007, 03:27 PM:

quote: Brad Allen
I'll bet it's because they didn't feel it would perform as Paramount expects.

I feel the same way about HD-DVD. [Razz]

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 12-21-2007, 05:46 PM:

Actually, I'm surprised that it's opening as wide as it is. I believe it was originally targeted to open only on a few screens in NY/LA, but then decided to open it up wider.

The screen count from boxofficemojo indicates 1249 theaters. We got a single print. Sold out a midnight show last night.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-21-2007, 07:59 PM:

quote: Brad Allen
Paramount as of this past Monday was only making 1200 (35mm) prints. Sounds like a lot of spin from Markus.

That may be... but I've known of times when we've been asked to decide whether we want a particular film because the studio orders the initial print run based on those choices. If we had said 'no', we wouldn't have been able to change our minds and would have had to wait until after the initial break.

Whether this is normal, I don't know... but it does happen, and not infrequently.

Might Paramount might have done their print run based on initial commitments from the exhibitors?

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 12-23-2007, 08:37 PM:

Although it isn't listed on Box Office Mojo, Sweeney Todd is supposed to expand to 2000+ theaters on Jan. 11 according to Paramount Progress.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-23-2007, 11:13 PM:

Carmike IS playing it here.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-24-2007, 05:11 PM:

You know if everyone would only open on one screen and not be playing 2 to 6 prints of the same movie it would help as well. It would slow down the process and the theaters would have some leverage then but each chain in a city is worried about not having enough of the take on any individual film the end result is there are few films that ever sell out on any one show and often hit movies have half the showings with hardly anyone in the theater!

If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

When did this all get so out of hand? I can remember when movies did well for several years not a few weeks! Okay, yes I am old now but at over 30 years in this I cannot believe how screwed the theater operator has allowed himself to become!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-24-2007, 07:24 PM:

quote:
If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

The original idea of the multiplex was to have multiple movies. The idea of the megaplex is (theoretically) to run more efficiently by spreading the customers out over multiple show times. For example, lets say an 8-plex had a 500 seat auditorium which sold out for (to use a current example) Alvin and the Chipmonks with one print. The theater would have to be staffed to handle 500 people entering in about 20 minutes. Now upgrade to a megaplex and instead of 1 print in a 500 seat auditorium they have 2 prints in 299 seat (to avoid needing multiple ADA areas) auditoriums with shows spaced 45 minutes apart. Neither will sell out but now you only need the staff to handle 250 people in a 20 minute span because you will have 2 shows.

Theoretically it works because that extra staff would be waiting around until the next rush. Of course the payroll savings has to be weighed against the additional overhead. Two 299 seat auditoriums (or even 250 seats) will take more square footage than one 500 seat auditorium. Also, you have to purchase 2 projectors, 2 sound racks, 2 sets of speakers etc. If you notice, a 14 plex built today doesn't have many more total seats than an 8-plex of the early 90's.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-24-2007, 07:50 PM:

So it is better to burn the film out with 70% going to the film company and the movie dead when it hits 60% the next week! Why yes if I'm the film company that makes perfect sense, however, I'm not the film company and payroll savings at the expense of box office split going to the film company is no savings it is the operator cutting his own throat, then complaining that he is bleeding!

What you say works in theory but you don't really have work in practice.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-24-2007, 09:17 PM:

I don't think that the "frontloaded" nature of most films is really all to blame on the megaplex explosion. Major releases are playing in many more LOCATIONS now than they used to. Jurrasic Park opened in less than 3000 theaters where this year a film like that will open in over 4000 theaters.

Although films seem to fall off more quickly now and you would think it would have a drastic effect on film cost, the film cost percentage over a year in a multiplex hasn't changed much at all from the early 90's.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 12-26-2007, 12:02 AM:

quote:
You know if everyone would only open on one screen and not be playing 2 to 6 prints of the same movie it would help as well. It would slow down the process and the theaters would have some leverage then but each chain in a city is worried about not having enough of the take on any individual film the end result is there are few films that ever sell out on any one show and often hit movies have half the showings with hardly anyone in the theater!

If we would just realize that more prints doesn't mean more per screen the whole idea of multiplex is to have multiple movies to chose from not to have more show times on one film to chose from!

When did this all get so out of hand? I can remember when movies did well for several years not a few weeks! Okay, yes I am old now but at over 30 years in this I cannot believe how screwed the theater operator has allowed himself to become!

I agree, "selling out" is good PR via word of mouth. Multiple prints of the same film is counterproductive in my opinion.

Posted by Mike Sellars (Member # 4042) on 12-28-2007, 05:57 PM:

I have never understood why we all (studios and exhibitors) refuse to understand that, in truth, our relationship is symbiotic... not parasitic. If we didn't play their films, they wouldn't get shown - if they didn't make the films, we would have nothing to play, and that would be it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-28-2007, 06:48 PM:

Mike, I would say that used to be 100% true some years ago, but more and more the theatrical release is only one of the avenues where the studio can sell its product. Now granted, it is still the most significant avenue, but not the only one. And just the same as the whole distribution system and even the culture around distribution has significantly changed over the year, it may still evolve with each coming generation. Right now, for the most part, all the other media thru which the studios can get their product to the public pretty much rely on the success and excitement generated by the theatrical run. The demand for a title starts with theatrical -- lucky for exhibition. But that may change as each new generation seeking their entertainment become comfortable with seeing movies in very different formats other than movie theatres.

There very well could come a time when a three million ad campaign can generate all the excitement necessary for a film to be in demand via non-cinema outlet -- pay-per-view, piped into home theatres via fiberoptics, DVDs, freakin iPods, etc. Right now that is not viable, but it easily could be. Remember, studios at one time vowed on a stack of box office reports that they would never EVER release their classic films to television. Disney was one of the loudest, saying their classics like FANTASIA would NEVER be shown on TV. They actually considered TV as the enemy. Today Disney has been know to release titles direct to DVD. So much for studio vows.

The culture of studios and exhibition joined at the hip againt big bad TV has long morphed into something very different. TV, cable and home video may remain exhibition's nemisis, but they sure are not distribution's.

Studios no longer see their livelyhood directly tied solely to the rise and fall of exhibition. Years ago it was common practice that if a theatre was on the verge of going under, the studios would give them breaks on rental deals, sometimes selling titles flat, waiting to see if the theatre could get back up on its feet. Deals were routinely made based on a theatre's previous performance. Studios actually were proactive in keeping theatres afloat, the idea being, as you said, they only had theatrical exhibition as the outlet for their product.

Even in the non-theatrical 16mm market was viewed by the studios as very suspect; studios would always protect any theatre within driving distance of a non-theatrical screening. Disney, one of the staunchest supporters of this protectionist culture wouldn't even allow a non-theatrical venue to play their pictures on Saturdays as they saw that as competition with commercial theatres that ran Saturday kiddy shows. That kind of symbiotic, protectionist relationship has been long dimishing and evolving into something a lot less secure for exhibition. Can anyone say Day-and-Date...the next step?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2007, 08:54 PM:

Most movies on the break here play for two weeks. For the past couple of years we have put the "dates" on the marquee of how long a movie will play. This dilutes people's notion that they MUST see the movie on opening weekend and spreads the crowds out nicely.

I think some people are afraid that a movie will ONLY play on that opening weekend, because the studios relentless pound the opening date in all the advertising. By putting our two-week span of dates on the marquee, we have seen a very noticeable spread-out of crowds. We hardly ever have to turn people away on opening night now -- the non-total fanatics and avid moviegoers know to wait a week or ten days.

Of course now the film companies are combating this by going to the aggregate film rental, but for those movies that are 70-50 or whatever, it's a help. In a large city situation, you could still do this -- you KNOW you'll be playing a film for a certain number of weeks for sure. Anything beyond that could be promoted as "Held over! 5th HUGE week!"

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-28-2007, 10:11 PM:

Actually Day and Date is already here HDNET Movies network airs many Magnolia release films either the day of open or with in a few days of open and when they do the DVD goes on sell before the picture is out of the theater.

To date they have not broken even on any of these pictures they are largely art house type of films but it is still a barringer of the future and not necessarily one I like. HDNet is owned by the owner of the Dallas Basketball team and I think he also has theaters (landmark comes to mind)I just don't what happens to theaters when a straight to DVD title does a $100,000 million in a month that could be the end!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2007, 11:09 PM:

What's a "barringer?"

It's notable that none of these 'day and date' movies have made any money. Why would anybody want to release a major movie that way? Theatrical release is the "stamp" that makes a movie feel like a movie - and not a glorified TV show or a shoddy straight-to-video release - when it comes out on disk.

Also I don't think any movie will ever do $100,000 million in a month no matter how it's released. That'd be like a hundred billion dollars. [Big Grin]

Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 12-30-2007, 09:47 PM:

Translate "barringer" to "harbinger"

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-31-2007, 06:15 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's notable that none of these 'day and date' movies have made any money. Why would anybody want to release a major movie that way? Theatrical release is the "stamp" that makes a movie feel like a movie - and not a glorified TV show or a shoddy straight-to-video release - when it comes out on disk.

Yah, to you and me and everyone who grew up with only theatres the only place to see movies. Yes, there were movies on TV but they were YEARS after the theatrical release. So for all intents and purposes, movies and theatres were synonomus. But that's old school. Technology has changed expectations in the culture. Today's kids are growing up with movies readily available in a multitude of formats and delivery systems and that will only grow in the future.

I believe people in the near future will not see the theatrical release as the god from which all grace flows. There is no reason why the next generations won't get the kind of excitement about a movie if its released on cable and DVD as we did from theatrical releases. After all, the studios publicity machine makes the MOVIE hot and desirable; it's not because LORD OF THE RINGS is playing in a theatre that it's hot; it's the MOVIE the public wants to see, and they will buy it from where ever the studio thinks they will make the most money. Today it's still the cinema; all I am saying is that may not always be the case.

The studios own the TV "entertainment" programs -- ET, Access Hollywood, The Insider, et al, and they have only one purpose: promote their own product; they are nothing but one big half-hour commercials for the studios. Same thing with the internet -- one huge promotion machine, and it reaches young people and they listen to it.

There will be a time when enough of the populous will clamor for their movie entertainment from where ever they can get it and it will no longer need to be made "legitimate" by a theatrical run. They will be perfectly happy if they can get their latest HARRY POTTER film day-and-date on DVD or piped directly to their PPV cable box at home. They will not dismis it if it didn't have an exclusive run in the theatres first.

And I agree that right now there are enuf of us old farts who do see the theatrical release as the only way a film can be legitimized, but that may not remain the norm. It will all depend on young people's perception (not ours), and make no mistake about it, the studios are working diligently to convince the young people that buying their product in variants other than conventional movie theatres is legitimate -- even "cool." Internet is where all the hip, cool stuff happens; movie theatres is for the old folks. The studios' goal is to make ALL outlets equal so they can sell their product everywhere possible.

And you KNOW studios' ad campaigns can shape perception -- witness the Apple ads, painting the PC guy as totally unhip, old, homely, while the Apple kid as young, cute, hip and condescending (but only subtly; not enough to make him unlikable). That campaign is hugely successful. Just be glad the studios don't decide to mount a similar campaign with conventional theatres represented by that unhip, fat, EveryOldman, while the purchase of movies via internet, cable, DVD and iPods are represented by a young, hip EveryKid. And they would do it in a second if they think they could make more money going down that direct-to-cable/DVD home theatre route. In a second my friends.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-31-2007, 02:23 PM:

I think saturating the market with prints makes sense when people have a finite amount of "going out" time, such as during this past week. Over a long summer what you all say makes more sense, but when people only have 2 weeks or so to visit family and do these sort of activities, we need to pack in as many as possible in as little time as possible.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-01-2008, 12:54 PM:

And therein lies the other side of the argument, which makes as much sense to the consumer as a wider window makes to an exhibitor.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-02-2008, 03:55 PM:

Well I know a lot of people that actually prefer later in the run so they don't stand in line so long. Unfortunately for those people there is always a new movie that has a line of some kind and you all stand the same lines since all movies are sold from all registers!

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 01-17-2008, 06:52 PM:

On a related note, Marcus is not opening Cloverfield.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-27-2008, 08:05 PM:

The Marcus booker is in a pissing contest with Paramount over terms.

Posted by Dennis Udovich (Member # 1066) on 01-29-2008, 05:24 PM:

I have no problem with my company not coming to terms with Paramount. Sometimes you need to put your foot down and say "Enough already!" Other film buyers need to do the same.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-29-2008, 07:05 PM:

Oh I agree, I should of added, more power to Marcus if they can get any reduction.

Posted by Dennis Udovich (Member # 1066) on 02-06-2008, 03:33 PM:

Marcus has settled with Paramount with a new agreement.