quote: Joe Tommassello

---

Anyone here still playing a major film that was released 95 days ago or more?

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

Anyone here still playing a major film that was released 95 days ago or more?

---

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

At what point does the shrinking window start taking a dramatic bite out of the theatrical release? When we get to that point, does it start to threaten the viability of movie theatres?

---

If/when we get to that point, I'd expect the chains to sqawk first. They were the ones that put their foot down over day-and-date release to theatres, video and DVD. Many of their locations, especially prime downtown ones, have far more overhead than you or I could imagine, and some of them have stockholders to answer to.

They probably didn't say anything as the window swallowed up much of the sub-run market, because most of them didn't have any operations at that level.

I don't know where the 'tipping point' might be, but I imagine we're heading toward it. It could also be that the studios are testing to see just where that line really is... maybe?
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-12-2009, 09:20 AM:
 
Paranormal is a different deal since it is a "horror" flick out just before Halloween. It's grosses have dropped sharply since the Halloween weekend, down from it's high of $21 mil the weekend of Oct. 23rd to $8 mil last weekend, even though print counts rose by about 600 during the same time. By Christmas, it will be completely dead and even if a home video release happened it wouldn't hurt cinemas one bit.

Paramount is definitely the big bully these days, demanding higher film rentals than anyone else. Marcus Theatres did not play Paranormal Activity across their circuit. Exhibitors need to collectively fight Paramount.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-12-2009, 10:21 AM:
 
What they need to do is tell the studios that they, the exhibitors, will not install or make future investments in digital cinema unless the studios agree in writing that the Video market window will not shrink below 4 months. The studios are the primary beneficiary of this conversion so why screw the exhibitor by day and date releases. If day and date releases occur then it's a sure bet that attendance will take a hit. This will cause investors to loose confidence in companies they have invested in. There has to be a degree of fairness between Theatrical release and video releases of any sorts.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-12-2009, 02:00 PM:
 
Darryl, the power that exhibitors hold is immense if only they would present a unified front, perhaps form an association where their interests could be codified and presented to the studios. Oh wait, they do, it calls itself NATO. Only problem is, its leaders and evidently its members are a mob of eunuchs and castrati.

How is it that the studios have a "Master Contract" that they demand the exhibitor agrees to and the exhibitor has nothing even resembling his interests in a similar contract? There is no reason NATO couldn't present the conditions under which the exhibitor will play a studio's picture -- in other words, the exhibitor's Master Contract, basicially saying, "these are the conditions under which we will put your title up on our member screens." Either the studio understands the advantage of having 4000 plus screens on which to play its title or he winds up only having the video avenue to release -- see if he can make his 40 million opening weekend that way.

Sure, there would needed to be a back and forth compromise with distribution making their demands and exhibition making theirs, BUT, going way back to when the studio began making their demands, exhibition had the ability to stand face to face and say, no, we don't accept those terms so we will not play your title under those conditions. But instead, when they were looking face to face with the MPAA, exhibition blinked and the "Master Contract" was born.

In my alternate universe, the exhibitor would be the entity presenting the basic terms that the distrib would have to meet in order to get his release up on the NATO member screens. It could have easily been this way....if it weren't for stupid exhibitors who continually fought among themselves and couldn't present a united front. The studios did present that united front and they blink.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-12-2009, 08:10 PM:
 
Nato always has to worry about collusion when it comes to having their master contract. A studio is an entity that can set whatever rules it wants if you want their product. Exhibitors banning together (collude) to FORCE a more favorable agreement would generally be considered illegal. Now if you could get EVERY exhibitor, on their own to come up with say a 50/50 split at the box and other such "demands" and stick to it (don't play the films if the studio doesn't agree)...then they would likely improve their lot in life. However, someone always gives in and then it is a free-for-all to jump in and not get left out.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-12-2009, 09:32 PM:
 
Frank, it sounds like you're talking UNION there, and we know how NATO feels about unions

I recently got a new Master Contract from a distributor whose name sounds like Bony. One of the clauses in the contract is we are not allowed to reveal the existence of said contract.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-13-2009, 02:54 AM:
 
Martin, no I wasn't thinking union, just business with like interests setting guidlines. And I don't see how it would be any different than the MPAA members getting together and authoring parameters underwhich they rent their pictures. It's no coincidence that Master Contracts have the very similar conditions and that is not collusion.

Steve, if the NATO members agreed on a guideling which said they will not play any engagement where the slip was higher than say 50/50, it would not be an anti-trust issue or a restraint of trade if it is applied to ALL the studios equally. It would only become illegal if it applied that to Disney (heh heh the rodents head would explode) but played Sony titles with a rate more favorable to that studio. But you are right -- if a few greedy members break the guideline, then it falls apart.

I wonder if any big exhibitor ever refused to play a title because it just didn't agree to the terms, or do they all pretty much accept whatever any studio wants just to get the picture. I heard the exhibs refused to play THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE because Universal, I believe it was, said they were going to release it simultaniously to cable PPV. I can't think of any other time that I've heard of where exhibition en masse refused to play a piture for unacceptable terms.

Wait, now I remember that I think it was Loews who walked out of negotiations for STAR WARS I when Lucas & Fox demanded a cut of the concessions grosses. But I only heard that in hearsay and not from any concrete source.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-13-2009, 10:44 AM:
 
I seem to remember that Regal refused and didn't play "The Prince of Egypt" on the break due to failed terms negotiations.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-13-2009, 05:26 PM:
 

quote: Jeremy Weigel

---

I seem to remember that Regal refused and didn't play "The Prince of Egypt" on the break due to failed terms negotiations.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Wait, now I remember that I think it was Loews who walked out of negotiations for STAR WARS I when Lucas & Fox demanded a cut of the concessions grosses. But I only heard that in hearsay and not from any concrete source.

---