Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Being honest with your customers?

This is topic Being honest with your customers? 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=002640

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 11-30-2012, 12:14 PM:

I believe this person is not being totally honest with their customers.

"On 3-D: we opted out of 3-D. The number one reason is that having it as an option makes the film companies crazy and they demand our screen keep their pics up for far too long and they bully and threaten if we want to bring in another film. They use it as a chess piece to block other films. It turns a crazy relationship 300% crazier. Also: 3-D would have added about 30K per screen. " Theater operator/owner name withheld

Who agrees with the above statement?

BTW, this operator is also fundraising for digital while receiving VPFs. They have not been forthcoming to their customers who they are soliciting that are receiving VPFs. If they hit their goal, they could very well make more money back in the form of VPFs and donations. And it is a for-profit theater.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 11-30-2012, 12:40 PM:

I would think this owner is probably just more misinformed than he or her is a lair. But that is giving him or her the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2012, 03:38 PM:

The first statement, about 2.5 years ago when we first went digital, the film companies were indeed forcing the issue with 3D. If you had 3D capability they insisted you play their movie in 3D. So we had our machine set up to where we could play the 3D movies in 2D if we wanted to, but never used that option.

About a year later they "saw the light" and began offering combo drives, and nowadays for single screens they "would like" you to give the premium showtimes to 3D but they don't really push the issue anymore. So...on the 3D movies we usually run the weekend shows in 3D and the midweek shows in 2D.

As for the second part, I don't see a whole lot wrong with fundraising. He's going to have expensive upgrades and such that won't be covered by the VPFs, so he might very well need to sock that money away for the future.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-30-2012, 03:52 PM:

As long as being straight forward with his audience and he's not misrepresenting himself as a charity for which donations are tax-deductible he's not doing anything wrong fundraising.

I know of at least one other for-profit theatre who did fundraising for digital. There are also theatres that set up non-profit, tax deductible "Friends of..." organizations to fundraise. As long as everyone knows how the money goes and where, I see nothing wrong.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 11-30-2012, 04:40 PM:

My problem with the fundraising is that if they hit their goal (which is very likely) they will have enough money to pay for all of their upgrades including sound between the fundraising and the VPFs. It is quite possible to make significantly more than the cost of the upgrades. Now if they had told their folks who were donating that are getting the VPFs then I have no issue.

I know of no other for profit theater getting VPFs and fundraising at the same time. Anyone?

As far as the cost of the 3d, my last quote for Dolby 3d was $20,000 and that included about 600 glasses.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 11-30-2012, 04:48 PM:

Just because you are in a VPF program, doesn't mean you could afford all the upfront costs to convert. I would watch out if I were soliciting funds from the public as several if the VPF programs have language that specifically blocks such activity. I've even seen a theater that requires a 25 cent donation with every ticket sold that they don't report to the studios. They could easily find themselves in hot water over that...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2012, 06:06 PM:

Dolby 3D has decreased in price; maybe the guy is looking at an older quote.

There's other things to consider with Dolby, too. The dishwasher and associated plumbing/electrical, not to mention labor to deal with it. It's just not for everybody.

I have mixed feelings about 3D to this day...a lot of people love it, and it's cool to have, but a lot don't like it, and it adds a lot of work to the equation.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-01-2012, 12:23 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
My problem with the fundraising is that if they hit their goal (which is very likely) they will have enough money to pay for all of their upgrades including sound between the fundraising and the VPFs. It is quite possible to make significantly more than the cost of the upgrades. Now if they had told their folks who were donating that are getting the VPFs then I have no issue.

I know of no other for profit theater getting VPFs and fundraising at the same time. Anyone?

Mike: With more than 5,000 theatres in the U.S. I'm sure you don't have info on all of them. Most small town theatres are seen by the residents as "their theatre" and they are not particularly interested in getting a tax write-off for their contribution. Since VPFs are a normal part of showing digital there is no reason for the operator to "open his books" to contributors. To say he doesn't have the funds to purchase the equipment is sufficient. It's the customers who benefit by keeping their local theatre open.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2012, 01:55 PM:

Probably best not to allow customers "to look too much behind the curtain." Nothing to hide, but very bad psychology. It IS entertainment after all. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-02-2012, 08:03 AM:

Louis,

I have never said open your books. Just be honest when you do talk about the financial aspects of your business. If you go to the public talking about how you are in dire financial straits to stay in business, you better be honest with folks.

Let me rephrase the scenario a bit:
I need $60,000 to stay in business. Can you (the public) help me out by giving me $35,000?

vs.

I need $20,000 ($60,000 minus $40,000 in expected VPFS) to stay in business. Can you (the public) help me out by giving me $35,000?

(BTW, this theater was able to line up financing for the conversion before they started seeking donations.)

Robert,

You see no difference to the above?

How about someone saying they need a $100,000 medical surgery to be able to live and would like to get $75,000 in donations. Would it matter if the person fails to mention that person has insurance that will pay for $60,000 of the $100,000 cost?

I would not have an issue if this owner were to tell people that they are receiving a substantial portion of their conversion paid for by the VPFs and still ask for donations.

But to profit for donations in a significant way by telling such a sob story (needing to spend $60,000 per screen to stay open)is wrong IMHO.

Robert,
I have followed theaters' fundraising activities quite extensively. Of course the most common scenario is a non-profit. There are a few more for-profit theaters but their success rate for donations is significantly less.

Again I know of only one theater seeking significant donations (50% or greater of conversion costs) and getting VPFs. Please, if anyone knows of one, name it.

I think the reason you do not see this happening if the ethical dilemma of asking for more money that you need.

3d costs: Can we agree that the $30,000 cost is exaggerated by at least 50%? Between Real3d's low upfront cost and the propensity for theaters to charge upgrade fees to pay for the 3d costs that $30,000 is greatly exaggerated no matter how you look at it.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-02-2012, 02:32 PM:

Mike: I've seen theatre owners express that the distributors don't like VPFs and are less likely to see those theatres in a favorable light. Bottom line: it means less money for the distributors when dealing with a VPS theatre. So I'd prefer to ask my community to help me than to take VPFs. Besides, community support is a lot better than paying bank interest rates. I suspect you work for a not-for-profit and are a little annoyed that a for-profit is using your tactic.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-04-2012, 12:40 PM:

Small theatres have had some problems getting titles especially if they are marginally low grossers. The vpf makes this worse, since it reduces the amount the film company gets. Louis

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-04-2012, 01:43 PM:

And some of the smaller distribs have had to get the theatres to sign VPF waivers because of the low gross nature of art product, which I'm sure the financiers look poorly upon.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-04-2012, 02:13 PM:

quote: Andrew Thomas
I've even seen a theater that requires a 25 cent donation with every ticket sold that they don't report to the studios. They could easily find themselves in hot water over that...

Whether they report it or not, they could get themselves in hot water, as a *required* donation isn't really a donation.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-04-2012, 09:51 PM:

Also, I just google searched the quote from the original post and it turns out that it is the same owner as the one I mentioned with the mandatory $.25 donation. Yeah, dude seems a little shady to me in my dealings with him via e-mail and another forum.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-04-2012, 10:00 PM:

Not to mention possible problems with the IRS and state tax authority, depending how they are treating those 'donations' on their tax return.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-06-2012, 11:44 PM:

Here's what the Hitching Post Theatres in Tehachapi, CA, says about why they don't show 3-D (from their website).

"The cost to equip just one theater auditorium with the current digital 3D process (the only system supported by all of the major film companies) is over $100,000.00. Being a small business in a small town, this is just not financially feasible.

Theaters trying to offset their equipment investment and associated costs like 3D glasses, and with the "strong encouragement" from film studios desperate for additional revenue charge moviegoers a significant increase in admission prices for a 3D presentation. For example, the Edwards theater in Bakersfield has a $3.50 charge added to their normal admission prices. To see a film in 3D, ticket prices are $14.00 for adults, seniors and children are $10.50. The Maya Cinemas in Bakersfield and the Cinemark theater in Lancaster adds $3.00 per ticket to their already high normal admission prices for the process.

With normal ticket prices already high for most people, I am not willing to do this. I feel the vast majority of our customers would not or could not pay these ridiculous, inflated prices to see 3D movies most of which are poor-quality 3D "conversions" (movies not originally filmed in 3D but converted to 3D after-the-fact).

When digital 3D movies were first emerging, the novelty was fresh and many people chose to pay the additional fees. After nearly 80 percent of those who saw "Avatar" saw it in 3D, it was assumed that the format would quickly overtake theatrical distribution. But 3D's box-office trajectory has been pointing downward almost ever since, with moviegoers growing disinterested in paying higher ticket prices.

A recent article published by the well-respected financial services/market research company BTIG confirms this:

"We continue to believe the US consumer is frustrated by the excessive pricing of 3D and that the 3D experience is increasingly being viewed as a gimmick to squeeze more money out of moviegoers, with 3D often adding very little to a movie’s enjoyment (beyond eye fatigue and a headache). 3D technology is not the answer to making more money in the movie business - making great content and pricing it conservatively is."

Sincerely,

Will Viner
Owner, Hitching Post Theaters

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-07-2012, 10:03 AM:

I can't vouch for the $100,000 price tag -- especially if they're already a digital cinema. (Are they?)

But the rest of the argument seems reasonable to me.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2012, 10:17 AM:

His argument about "most being poor quality conversions" is off. Sure there are poor conversions but I think the studios learned a valuable lesson from Warner Bros on their crappy conversion on Clash of the Titans. Most 3D today looks much better.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-07-2012, 10:39 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I can't vouch for the $100,000 price tag -- especially if they're already a digital cinema. (Are they?)

That is one of the biggest lies I have seen. Can't wait for the expected whining from him when he has no choice to convert to digital.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-07-2012, 11:18 AM:

While 3D cinematography and 2D to 3D post processes may have improved, I personally don't think 3D adds much to the experience.

It isn't that I find the glasses uncomfortable, and I have only experienced eye-strain with one movie (Piranha), so those are not my issues with 3D. My issue is this: Supposedly, 3D makes a movie a more "immersive" experience, but my experience has been quite the opposite -- 3D somehow creates a sense of detachment from the action. It is as though putting things in 3D underscores the idea that "I am an observer, witnessing this with the aid of technology. This is a mediated experience, to be seen through lenses. I am not really a part of this world, for this world is merely an illusion. It does not exist. If I remove the glasses, it will all fall apart." The viewer becomes too self-conscious and, under such circumstances, even the best movie has to work overtime to tap into the subconscious.

Now, there is one movie that I feel benefits from seeing in 3D. And that movie is Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams." It works for me because I know that the cave is a real place that I would never get to see in 3D with my own eyes. The shape of the cave walls is an important component to the cave art. So 3D helps in that respect.

And "Captain E/O" was fun -- but that doesn't count since it was a 17-min amusement park attraction.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-07-2012, 11:47 AM:

I tend to agree with Manny here.

In my experience I needed to sit way closer to the screen in an attempt at an immersive experience and to feel less like a spectator, just the opposite of 2D films. It feels as if you need to get closer to the picture frame or window, but this is the very essence of the problem.

The only films I saw where 3D was essential was Avatar and to a lesser degree, Hugo where I could almost forget I was wearing the glasses. I have not seen Herzog's film. I bet just a handful have seen it in "good" 3D as it never played the best screens.

The best plot driven movies allow you to almost immediately suspend disbelief. "Argo" was a recent example for me.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-07-2012, 11:48 AM:

Yes, I'll go along with "Hugo" and "Avatar."

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-07-2012, 12:58 PM:

Mike, the theater in question doesn't have digital currently. To go digital + 3D could easily run $100k.

Projectors are $35-$70 depending on resolution and screen size.
Matte 3D systems like Dolby run $15-$20k with a decent amount of glasses.
If you go polarized 3D, you could spend the same if you go with Master Image or less upfront with RealD. Either way (RealD or MI) now you need a new silver screen. Which could be another $5-$10k.
They likely need a new audio processor to handle D-Cinema sound, so that is another $2-$3k.
Shipping, installation, etc...

Yeah, nothing about that $100k claim is false for this particular theater which is currently 35mm only.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 12-07-2012, 12:58 PM:

If 3D did for every movie what it did for "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" I don't think people would complain nearly as much about spending another $1.50 to $3 a ticket.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-07-2012, 01:12 PM:

This negative 3D experience is made much worse by the totally forgettable film that use it. I think "Rip Off" is where the audience is. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-07-2012, 05:50 PM:

quote: Andrew Thomas
Mike, the theater in question doesn't have digital currently. To go digital + 3D could easily run $100k.

Projectors are $35-$70 depending on resolution and screen size.
Matte 3D systems like Dolby run $15-$20k with a decent amount of glasses.
If you go polarized 3D, you could spend the same if you go with Master Image or less upfront with RealD. Either way (RealD or MI) now you need a new silver screen. Which could be another $5-$10k.
They likely need a new audio processor to handle D-Cinema sound, so that is another $2-$3k.
Shipping, installation, etc...

Yeah, nothing about that $100k claim is false for this particular theater which is currently 35mm only.

Assuming this guy wants to continue operations, he will very soon have to convert. No doubt about it, it will have to be done very soon.

Now if we were talking about a statement made 3 years I could agree to an extent. But not now. He converts within 8 mos or less or he drastically changes his operations (to discount late run or closed-he is now first run).

Keep in mind he could of ran Tech film 3d.

BTW, this guy is behind the curve. My best guess is that 85% of the top 3000-3300 locations have already converted.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-07-2012, 11:57 PM:

The theatre in question was originally a carpet store. It has a makeshift appearance with exposed airconditioning ducts on the ceiling. But it has its charms.

They are currently proclaiming that they "are presenting THE HOBBIT in the standard 2-D, 35mm film format, NOT the controversial High Frame Rate version."

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-08-2012, 02:26 PM:

Mike,

I find it fascinating that when confronted with the untruthfulness of your defamatory charge of lying on the part of the other theater owner, you can't even man up and admit that what you said was false.

If you are currently 35mm it could easily cost you in the $100k range to move to digital and 3D.

What you should do in this situation is say "Oh, my mistake." and move along.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-08-2012, 07:28 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
BTW, this operator is also fundraising for digital while receiving VPFs.

Is it possible to receive VPF without converting to digital?

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-08-2012, 07:54 PM:

You won't receive them, but you could be signed up for one and not yet installed.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-08-2012, 10:47 PM:

quote: Andrew Thomas
Mike,

I find it fascinating that when confronted with the untruthfulness of your defamatory charge of lying on the part of the other theater owner, you can't even man up and admit that what you said was false.

If you are currently 35mm it could easily cost you in the $100k range to move to digital and 3D.

What you should do in this situation is say "Oh, my mistake." and move along.

Andrew,

You are assuming that this operator has plenty of time to convert to digital which most people do not. Are you of the belief that a first run small town theater has more than a year left with film or years like Bob thinks? Most people would say the "film cliff" is fast approaching.

Plus he could have used technicolor 3d for significantly less like I did.

Manny,

You will not receive VPFs until you are using the equipment. The original theater in question is fundraising AFTER they received a bank loan and after they signed a VPF agreement and after the equipment has been installed and in use.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-08-2012, 11:03 PM:

You didn't really address Andrew's point, though. You are now suggesting that it's not advisable to attempt to save enough to do a 35mm -> digital 3D conversion where Andrew seemed to be saying that it's wrong to call the guy a liar for throwing out $100K as the amount for that conversion (although I don't know if the $100K amount came from the owner or not).

Although, you did say this is the same operator who did "mandatory donations" so I wouldn't be surprised if he would mislead.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-08-2012, 11:54 PM:

The guy in the original article said that it costs "over 100k" to install a 3D system, which implies that this is a cost over and above that of the original digital system.

Of course everyone's mileage will vary but I can attest that we did not spend 100k on our conversion even including the shipping, electrical, 3D glasses and dishwasher, and we even threw in a new screen at the same time. Some guys are just grandstanding.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 12-09-2012, 12:51 AM:

Mike,

It is amusing that you are charging me with making assumptions when the only one here doing so is you in regards to the intent of that theater owner to deceive. I already pointed out how factually wrong you were about his claim of cost. Maybe he is delusional and thinks there will be plenty of 35mm prints to go around next year and the year after? I don't know that and it is not relevant or meaningful in the context of his/her quote about the cost of going 3D for their theater.

They indirectly note why Technicolor's system is of no value to them, it isn't supported by all the studios. So they directly reference the cost of converting their screen to digital for 3D at north of $100,000. Given what we know about the costs of projectors/servers/screens/3D units/sound processors/installation, it is absolutely within reason to believe it would be in that $100,000 range.

You are flatly wrong about the claims of that theater owner.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-09-2012, 12:57 AM:

This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask for some time now.

How do you spell the "bitchy cat" sound?

Rrreow!

[Confused]

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-10-2012, 09:52 AM:

Grandstanding, exaggerating, bending the facts, lying.....is there really that big of a difference.

Option 1: convert to digital with dolby 3d and upgrade sound and everything and you could get to $100k. I will give you that Andrew. I still say that $100k is still too high unless he has a huge auditorium. My highest bid for the same situation was less than $80,000. But, this digital system gives him no other value besides 3d? Would he not like almost every other theater out there and play 2d too? If he was playing no 3d movie, would he keep his film projector and use them vs the digital? Will he revert to his older-current sound system to play non-3d movies?

Option 2: Covert to digital with Real3d for significantly less upfront money. But, this digital system gives him no other value besides 3d? Would he not like almost every other theater out there and play 2d too? If he was playing no 3d movie, would he keep his film projector and use them vs the digital? Will he revert to his older-current sound system to play non-3d movies?
Which 3d system do you think this guy would take given his financial situation if he did convert? His words: "I am unable to financially justify the conversion to digital format. Investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into technology that will not increase ticket sales is questionable for a theater in a small town"

BTW, I have had a conversation with this owner. He was denied VPF b/c he played too many off the break movies. He says he is actively looking at other options. He is opening Les Miserables, a movie with a low print count I am told. So he must be a decent grossing theater.

Everyone can choose their own words to describe this situation. If lying is too harsh of a word I can agree with Mike B. with grandstanding.

We will see where this person is a year from now. Converted, discount with film, or closed.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 01-29-2013, 01:11 PM:

Anyone have a problem with this statement from the following article? (sub-run theater currently playing Wreck-It-Ralph, Skyfall, Life of Pie, Twilight part 3-2)

"We try to keep fees down as much as possible, but you can only do so much," Loudin said. The cinema makes a little money from the box office, but the theater's main income comes from the concession stand, Loudin said.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=146227#.UQgXkL88CSo

Holiday Cinemas seeks public's help in paying for digital upgrade
Originally published January 29, 2013

By Ike Wilson
News-Post Staff

At first glance, a public notice seeking financial assistance to support a movie theater's technical upgrade may seem strange, but think again.

Movie theaters across the country could close if they don't go digital by the end of the year, and buying digital equipment is an expense that many smaller cinemas cannot afford, said Mark Loudin, president of MDL Holiday Cinemas on Baughman's Lane in Frederick.

Traditional 35 mm film has been an industry standard since about 1910, but the movie industry is phasing out the film reels in favor of digital media, which means cinemas need new projection equipment, computers, a sound system and even a different screen, according to The Associated Press. The financial burden is huge for the small theater.

The cost of converting to digital averages about $70,000 per screen, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners, and about 60 percent of the nation's 5,750 theaters have switched to all-digital equipment.

MDL Entertainment Inc. recently bought one digital projector for $65,000, but the business cannot afford a second one, Loudin said.

Loudin posted this letter on the cinema's website, seeking the public's help:--

"Dear Friends of MDL Holiday Cinemas,

We are in need of charity for specific upgrades at the Holiday Cinemas. The theatre is on a low budget and has a major problem that is coming in the near future. The most specific problem is that we need to go digital by the end year of 2013 and if we do not go we will be forced to close as film companies are not using film for their movies any longer. I have purchased one digital projector which was $65,000 but we can not afford a second one. I am asking for the public's help in donating any monies you can to help us go digital and keep Holiday Cinemas up and running. All monies will be specifically deposited into one account and be used ONLY for digital upgrade, once we achieve in getting the digital equipment I will stop all donations as it is only for this purpose.

I would like to thank all of Frederick and surrounding counties that have been part of my family and coming to the Holiday Cinemas and supporting us, we thank you sincerely as we would not be in business if it wasn't for the customer base that we have.

Thanks again,

Mark Loudin, MDL Entertainment, Inc. president"

Since Loudin posted the letter about two weeks ago, the cinema has received about $700 in donations from the public. Social media will also be used to get the word out, and the theater's employees are letting customers know about the problem without pressuring them to donate money, Loudin said.

Many of the larger cinemas don't have to come up with the money to buy the new equipment, Loudin said, because they have arrangements with certain corporations that allow them to get the equipment at virtually no cost.

"It's a serious thing, and it's sad," Loudin said, that the smaller cinemas have to buy the new equipment.

"At the same time, I don't want to pressure people coming to the theater to give anything. If you want to help the theater, you can," he said.

Holiday Cinema is the lowest-priced theater in Frederick County as far as sub-run theaters, Loudin said. Sub-run theaters show movies two or three months after they are released.

Loudin has worked with MDL Holiday Cinemas for more than 21 years, and his family has owned the business for 11 years. Business is good, he said, and the theater has a loyal following. Fortunately for him, Frederick County officials' decision to eliminate the amusement tax will allow him to help pay for the first projector, Loudin said.

"We try to keep fees down as much as possible, but you can only do so much," Loudin said. The cinema makes a little money from the box office, but the theater's main income comes from the concession stand, Loudin said.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2013, 02:54 PM:

Well to say he makes "a little" money from the boxoffice might be sort of misleading since he's probably not paying much more than 35% print rental, being a sub-run; but if his ticket sales aren't too great than "a little" might be a good description.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 01-29-2013, 03:43 PM:

He has already bought one digital projector himself. That with the idea of sub-run guarantees being pretty small ($250-$350) I am sure he is doing well enough to be paying in the 35%-40% range).

I talked to him by email. He is adding the sales tax of 6% and amusement tax of 5% into his cost. He also mentioned having to pay 50% for all weeks of Life of Pi as an example making this a 61% cost.

I am sure he said what he said due to the many years of theater operators misleading the public about our cut of the ticket price. Does not make it right IMHO.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2013, 05:51 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
He also mentioned having to pay 50% for all weeks of Life of Pi as an example making this a 61% cost.

I thought Life of Pi was overpriced considering it wasn't that big a hit. We paid a pretty high percentage for it too, even playing it several weeks off the break.

Quite a few films now are setting a high rate and sticking with it for the duration of the run but I thought sub-runs still got a lower rate...maybe they don't.

Posted by Todd Leach (Member # 883) on 01-30-2013, 10:44 AM:

My film costs have gone from 47% in 2011 to 52% in 2012 and I am sub run most the time and 1st run mostly in the summer. Film costs are creeping up. Looks like we will be paying for the digital transition after all.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-30-2013, 06:03 PM:

When did sub run films stop being flat? I was under the impression years ago when I worked at sub runs ($1 house) that they paid a flat fee for the films.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-30-2013, 08:30 PM:

Maybe in order to get subrun flat rates you have to be subrun all the time? Todd says he's first-run in the summer. So the studios probably consider him to be first-run all the time.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-31-2013, 02:59 PM:

Now that I think about it... Maybe it was flat vs. percentage whichever was greater?

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 02-01-2013, 03:11 PM:

I've been mid-run for many years. Terms used to be straight %, usually 35-45%. But in the last couple years that has been changing. There is almost always a $250 minimum at least. And % are going up, with some 50% or more the first week.
I had a major film I played last year that was 50% for the whole run, even at 8 weeks off break.

So if this theater is low grossing, his actual % cost could be pretty high if the minimum is coming into play.