Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney flexing its muscles by raising film rentals

This is topic Disney flexing its muscles by raising film rentals 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=002668

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-16-2013, 01:39 PM:

The new scale starts with Iron Man 3 for the small fish. I am even hearing stories of really low holdovers like $800.

The old scale (or one used pretty recently) has a bottom of 45% if a film only did $12.5 million or less. Top rate was 62% over $400m.

New bottom is 50%, new top is 64% and starts at $350m.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/breaking-iron-man-3-tickets-not-sale-yet-131226015.html

BREAKING: ‘Iron Man 3′ Tickets Not On Sale Yet By Some Theater Chains Because Of Dispute With Disney: Movie Due May 3rd
By NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief | Deadline.com

BREAKING: ‘Iron Man 3′ Tickets Not On Sale Yet By Some Theater Chains Because Of …
7:30 AM UPDATE: My sources say Regal, Carmike, and as I previously reported AMC are among those big movie chains holding out.

BREAKING… 6 AM EXCLUSIVE: CinemaCon underway now in Las Vegas gives the impression that the Hollywood studios are buddy-buddy with the movie exhibitors. But there’s a frenemies drama unfolding there. I’ve learned that a number of movie theater circuits are refusing to put tickets on sale for Iron Man 3 even though its one of this summer’s most anticipated hits when it opens May 3rd. That’s because Disney decided to leverage the film in order to renegotiate the studio’s future terms with the chains beginning with this humongous Marvel blockbuster. I’m told that AMC, one of America’s largest exhibitors, is among those holding out even though the Robert Downey Jr movie opens wide in North America in just 17 days. Some chains were selling advance tickets — and then stopped. Distributors tell me Disney hasn’t negotiated its terms with the movie chains in several years — not even for Summer 2012′s huge tentpole The Avengers — so the studio thinks it’s due for a new overall deal on future Disney titles. Those include not just Marvel sequels but also Lucasfilm’s new Star Wars series as well as Pixar toons. That’s why the studio right now in Las Vegas is bargaining with the exhibition community, some of whose chains are pushing back. The result is an impasse with a number of circuits refusing to put IM3 tickets on sale until there is an accord. Ticket presales are increasingly important to blockbuster opening weekends. (Interestingly, AMC held Marvel movie marathons as part of the Disney hype machine before that pic opened. And it has scheduled Iron Man marathons for May 2nd.) My sources among distributors and exhibitors expect a fast resolution to this impasse “because these things always get worked out” especially with the clock ticking. Indeed it’s not unusual for Hollywood studios to renegotiate their terms on the eve of the release of a hot movie. And it doesn’t get much hotter than Iron Man 3 which is projected to earn a staggering $125+ million during it’s 3-day non-holiday weekend.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-16-2013, 09:49 PM:

Eh. Disney knows they've got us by the balls. Like some chain is going to not play the biggest movie of the summer?? Come on.

I guess we're just lucky they don't want that dreaded 90% that you keep reading about in the paper. [Wink]

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-17-2013, 08:38 AM:

I thought the old scale was reasonable. My main problem with them and I would imagine for you to is the same rental split for weeks 1-3 as week 5 if you are a move-over theater.

The holdover number is a killer. Honestly any studio should be happy with three weeks and they are the only studio that has done this. Since they have 2 kid movies later in the summer, they will be pushing other movies off screen that are doing well at 3 weeks too.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-17-2013, 11:14 PM:

WHAT film rentals? Aren't they mostly digital now? [Razz]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-18-2013, 11:01 AM:

They'll always be called "films" Jesse. And Mike, as I posted on another thread some time ago if a Disney filmed earned more than a grand the week I ran it Disney charged me 90%. That ridiculous agreement was set before I ever took over the theatre.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-18-2013, 12:58 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
And Mike, as I posted on another thread some time ago if a Disney filmed earned more than a grand the week I ran it Disney charged me 90%. That ridiculous agreement was set before I ever took over the theatre.

I sure would like to see the paperwork on that. I've never heard of ANYBODY ever paying 90%of the gross. 90% of the gross after the house allowance is deducted, yes. But if your house was actually paying 90% of the full gross...boy, did somebody see them coming.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-18-2013, 08:34 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I sure would like to see the paperwork on that. I've never heard of ANYBODY ever paying 90%of the gross. 90% of the gross after the house allowance is deducted, yes. But if your house was actually paying 90% of the full gross...boy, did somebody see them coming.

Mike, Bob was managing a $1 house then. Disney has never been for free movies or $1 movies for the most part. I agree his situation was unique.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-18-2013, 10:14 PM:

Actually Mike it was, and still is, a .99cent house.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-19-2013, 02:29 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Eh. Disney knows they've got us by the balls

Only because exhibition has none. NATO can easily get one or two chains to simply say, "Yeah? And we don't play any picture with those terms. Period." ...and then STICK by it. Without even one big chain's screens to play IRON MAN 2 on, there will be no $400 million or even $12.5 million; and The Rodent will have to rely on what it can eek out of PPV, hotel and cable rentals then DVD sales. Good luck with that. And of course, with a paultry theatrical release, there will be very little demand at any of those outlets -- they can shove IRON MAN 3 back into the famous "vault" and see what their tax guys can write off as a total loss.

It's the exhibitors/NATO that have the studios/MPAA by the balls...they are just too stupid to realize it cause they have no idea what real balls are! Wusses always get pushed around.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-19-2013, 03:52 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Eh. Disney knows they've got us by the balls. Like some chain is going to not play the biggest movie of the summer?? Come on.

It's not unprecedented, Mike, though it doesn't happen often.

Years ago, Paramount got into a percentages snit with one of the chains. The result was Crocodile Dundee playing first run in our local dollar houses.

It happened again with one of the early Star Wars pictures. If I recall, Regal was involved in that one. It didn't play the first-run houses, and once again, the sub-runners made out like bandits. You wouldn't think a chain would pass up on an obvious hit, but they've certainly done it.

One owner tried very hard to get a friend of mine to buy his theatre, suggesting he was now a first-run house. Of course, once the chains & the studios made up, it was back to sub-runs and empty seats.

Bob , you might recall the "Charleston Cinema" being involved in this.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-19-2013, 03:53 PM:

[quote]"Yeah? And we don't play any picture with those terms. Period." ...and then STICK by it. [quote]

That's not as easy as it sounds. If this was "The Odd Life of TImothy Green" it would be one thing, but we're talking about what's probably the biggest movie of the summer if not the whole year. Even I, with one screen, would have a hard time skipping over that movie. The fans would all of a sudden be leery that we "might not play" the next blockbuster.

Even a single multiplex with 20 or more screens would take a gigantic financial hit that they might not be able to afford, especially when considering the risk of losing customers (sometimes permanently) to competition.

The only way the "plan" would work is if ALL the exhibitors got together and said "no," and you know in today's competitive market that's never going to happen.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-19-2013, 03:56 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The only way the "plan" would work is if ALL the exhibitors got together and said "no," and you know in today's competitive market that's never going to happen.

True, but losing a chain the size of a Regal or an AMC has got to hurt enough to get someone's attention.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-20-2013, 10:41 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
It's the exhibitors/NATO that have the studios/MPAA by the balls...they are just too stupid to realize it cause they have no idea what real balls are! Wusses always get pushed around.

Based on my experience with the old VSDA (Video Rental Stores), an association can not spearhead a boycott. Even the chains can't call each other up and say "Hey let's skip this movie".

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-21-2013, 08:22 AM:

Won't work. Studios would just jump directly to on demand/cable, which is the way they are headed anyway. Besides, as someone once said: "Lunatics never unite."

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-21-2013, 09:42 AM:

quote: Mike Frese
Based on my experience with the old VSDA (Video Rental Stores), an association can not spearhead a boycott. Even the chains can't call each other up and say "Hey let's skip this movie".

Well, that might be true in theory, but the MPAA sure seems to have figured out a way to avoid that problem -- ever read the Master Contracts from the studios? Funny how every one of them reads like a carbon copy of the other guy's. Funny how the way the rate structures and percentages are figured, it's as if you are booking from the same company; they are basically identical no matter what the studio. Besides, no need to call it a boycott, because you don't apply it to a specific title from a specific studio -- that MAYBE construed as conspiracy; the trick is to agree in general not to book ANY title from ANY studio that reaches that threshold of percentage/terms that all agree are unacceptable. Agree on that and you are not boycotting, you are just doing what the studios do -- setting contract paramaters that are acceptable to your business model. THEY all have the same business model, exhibitors can as well. The question is, who needs who more; which studios will break away from the MPAA trust and meet the terms demands of the exhibitors in order to have an outlet for their product. With the MPAA trust hold or will NATO? It's who's got the bigger set. Who will blink? All you need is one or possibly two of the big three to drop refuse to play at terms that they find unacceptable and the grosses for that title will be in the toilet. A distributor is not blind, and in today's production model, you have multiple entities invested in a title; they all understand the kind of money a theatrical run brings in -- they are like stockholders; none of them will let distributor risk not having their title play in theatres for want of a few percentage points. An animic theatrical run would decimate their profits. Plus you still have the Paramount Concent Decrees -- what are left of them or their enforcement -- which say that each title has to be treated separately from other from the same studio; in other words, you a distributor can't withhold Title B because an exibitor refused to play Title A. This is a decided protection if a chain or two decides they won't book, say, IRON MAN n

As for by-passing the theatres and selling product direct to video...as I said, good luck with that. Without the excitement of a theatrical opening and at least some big screen play, there will be very little excitement on the part of the majority of the public to see a blockbuster on an iphone or a tv set. If there is no theatrical run, all they have is a made-for-tv-movie, and we know how little money those brough in. We know that because the studios don't even bother making them any more. Or what they have is a Direct-to-DVD movie. Some producers do that....and you never even hear the name of those titles, much less hear about them making millions in rental grosses.

But why won't this ever happen? Louis said it best -- Lunatics Never Unite.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-21-2013, 03:09 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
If there is no theatrical run, all they have is a made-for-tv-movie, and we know how little money those brough in. We know that because the studios don't even bother making them any more. Or what they have is a Direct-to-DVD movie. Some producers do that....and you never even hear the name of those titles, much less hear about them making millions in rental grosses.

I have 20+ years in the video store rental business. Direct-to-video is still going strong. Studios know that most adults have reduced their theater going habits. Why spend the money to get movies to the theater.

Made for TV is very strong right now. Producers who used to work theatrically are now on TV. Creator of The Walking Dead was involved with Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Not too shabby of a resume. The same can be said for actors too.

TV Series rent well for video stores. They may not be made for tv movies but instead are even better, TV shows. Do I need to even list the amount of quality shows on TV now?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-28-2013, 01:41 PM:

Surely you are not comparing the profits that can be squeezed out of a Direct-to-DVD production with that of a Hollywood blockbuster like IRON MAN n or TRANSFORMERS n or any of the other tent-pole titles? There is a reason no Direct-to-DVD production has ever won an Oscar, or spawned a merchandising market or a tie-in with the likes of McDonalds or Burger King.

We are comparing apples and oranges here...very small, unappealing oranges at that.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2013, 01:55 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
Creator of The Walking Dead was involved with Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Not too shabby of a resume.

There are lots of people who like movies shown in theaters, and lots who do not care where they see movies. The studios, if they're smart, will serve BOTH groups.

Who's to say the Walking Dead guy isn't wishing with all his heart that he'll get another theatrical project someday?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-28-2013, 05:51 PM:

Looks like Disney gave in. They think they had the last deal and high hand, but the owners still hold the trump card.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-28-2013, 06:19 PM:

I don't think Frank Darabont has to worry about getting a movie job if he wants one. But Darabont, like many other creative types, feels television is the place to be at the moment. Why else would he, once freed from his role as creative consultant on The Walking Dead, would he go to TNT and pitch a show based on John Buntin's book L.A. Noir (now called Lost Angels)? Because long-form programs are the place where creative types can truly be creative.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2013, 08:36 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Why else would he, once freed from his role as creative consultant on The Walking Dead, would he go to TNT and pitch a show based on John Buntin's book L.A. Noir (now called Lost Angels)? Because long-form programs are the place where creative types can truly be creative.

I'm guessing a better answer would be "because it's a good payday and basic cable is a good place for long-form programs that are too long to play in movie theaters."

TNT isn't exactly the big leagues.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 04-28-2013, 11:03 PM:

There are lots of filmmakers who are looking to TV as another outlet for their artistic expression. There are some stories that can be told in two hours and there are some stories that need to be serialized. The other reason for a lot of guys who were in features moving towards TV is there is more freedom to do original work instead of being forced into drawing solely from current I.P.s.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-29-2013, 09:32 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
TNT isn't exactly the big leagues.

Even if that was true, which it isn't (you may have heard of a show of theirs called The Closer, featuring Emmy winner Kyra Sedgwick, which may not have been as sexy as Mad Men but constantly drew more viewers per episode week in and week out), that's exactly why TNT goes for a show pitched to them by Frank Darabont. Three-time Oscar nominated filmmaker wants to put a show on your network? If it makes financial sense, of course you go for it. Two or three shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Walking Dead turn you from a joke of a classic movie channel to a bad ass cable powerhouse.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-29-2013, 10:22 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Surely you are not comparing the profits that can be squeezed out of a Direct-to-DVD production with that of a Hollywood blockbuster like IRON MAN n or TRANSFORMERS n or any of the other tent-pole titles? There is a reason no Direct-to-DVD production has ever won an Oscar, or spawned a merchandising market or a tie-in with the likes of McDonalds or Burger King.

We are comparing apples and oranges here...very small, unappealing oranges at that.

We have plenty of tent-pole titles. This summer's lineup is as big as I can remember it. Can we really handle any more on the schedule? Did anyone ever think that any exhibitor was not going to play Iron Man 3? I did not.

Frank, you mentioned that direct to dvd was dead and that made for tv was a joke. Made for TV is big right now for many reasons that have already been mentioned. And plenty of people are making good money for it. Many of these TV seasons are costing as much as the decent titles that are made each year theatrically.

BTW, when do tent pole titles win any oscars? Happens about once every 15 years maybe? BTW, by my experience at least half of people do not care what the critics say anyway.

There was a run of titles starring Jim Caviezel that made me as much money (when I owned video stores) as many of the $200m grossing movies did: Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, Madison, & Unknown (all solid 6.0+ IMDB scores).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-29-2013, 10:59 PM:

You keep comparing the movie business to the video business. Even though they overlap in terms of product, they are not the same thing.

There are many movies from the early 2000s that are fondly remembered today. Let's see you name one direct-to-video program made ten years ago that's still remembered fondly today.

By contrast, 2003's biggest movies included Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Finding Nemo, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Secondhand Lions, Elf, School of Rock, and Catch Me If You Can. That list doesn't even include the "academy award winners" that weren't big grossers for us.

TV accounts for more "dollars" than movies because of the sheer numbers of TV households involved. But as disposable as modern movies are, TV is an even more disposable medium, simply due to the breakneck pace at which it devours its stars and hit series.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-30-2013, 08:07 AM:

No Mike. I was trying to show where Frank was wrong about direct to video and made for tv. I never said that either of those would replace theatrical. What I did was share the news story and how it will affect the small exhibitors like you.

As you know, the majority of the forum contributors are more booth oriented vs. back office. Which is why I shared the story to begin with.

Mike they go hand in hand with each other. Both are important and related. Home Video historically has made a lot of money for the studios. That amount of money earned has dropped with the dying of video stores. Some of that has been replaced with made for tv. Lionsgate for example produces Mad Men.

I would say the buzz over TV shows is pretty equivalent to the biggest movies each year. And that is growing.

Questions for you Mike: Is this summer packed with big movies? Do we really need anymore tent-pole titles? My son and I counted 16 movies we would like to see this summer starting with Iron Man 3. Yes, it would be nice to have the movies spread out but the movie going consumer just does not go to the movies all year.

Most importantly to me: Can we get the adult (over 25 years olds) to come to the theaters? I only go to the movies with my kids (9 & 11). I can wait for everything else to watch in the comfort of my home (including movies I played in our theater!). And I am a tight-ass. That story sounds very similar to many.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2013, 11:28 AM:

I realize that the two industries need each other. It just always bugs me that the TV "universe" feels like they make all the hits, when it's just not true.

As for this summer, it's front-loaded, like always. There is room for more "tentpoles" in August.

It's been proven time and time again that people will go to movies any time of the year. Look at how they flocked to the first Ice Age or Rio or The Lorax, which all came out in early spring. We did just fine with Lincoln, which was a Christmas movie but didn't make it to the "hinterlands" until February.

It's the studios who can't seem to get over the idea that it must come out in the summer if it's a big movie. Every time something like "Hunger Games" comes along in the off season and does killer business, you would think they'd figure it out. People want to go to movies ALL year, not just summertime.

And...keep in mind that not everybody has young kids. Within a few years your kids probably won't be caught dead being seen at the movies with you! [Smile]

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 05-01-2013, 01:25 AM:

It's really true what you say Mike B. It doesn't matter what time of year it is if a good movie comes out people will go see it. Last week my folks and my wife and I went to see 42 and it was a sold out show. On a Wednesday night as well. Great movie IMO too This may be the norm at some places but at my local cinema the only sell outs are big blockbuster midnite releases and occasionally Saturday nights. And it had been there a week already. Word gets out and people want to see a great flick. Hollywood is always trying to crack the code on how to make more money. It's easy just make good moves. It's been provin time and time again wether it's winter, spring, summer, or fall.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-01-2013, 01:37 AM:

You've got that right Jarod. Unfortunately for exhibitors Hollywood has for the last couple of decades apparently developed the attitude that if a film is promoted heavily it will succeed. The public has gotten wise to that scam and is staying away from the boxoffice in droves.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2013, 01:55 AM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
The public has gotten wise to that scam and is staying away from the boxoffice in droves.

Actually 2012 boxoffice admissions were UP over 2011, as much as the doom-sayers hate to admit it as they're predicting the industry's demise (again).

Fortunately, week after week we get nice crowds who come out of the theater commenting on how much they liked the movie. I never hear anybody griping that "all of today's movies suck," except from people who never go to movies.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-01-2013, 03:32 PM:

Good for you Mike. It must have something with they way you book. When was the highest grossing year for theatres?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2013, 08:29 PM:

We don't do anything different from any other small first-run cinema with bookings -- just try to get the most popular movies "ASAP." Anyway I was talking about the industry in general having an increase last year, not us specifically.

The highest year admissions-wise since 1987 (according to the NATO website) was 2003 with just over 1.5 billion tickets sold domestically. The number has been hovering in between 1.3 and 1.5 billion every year since then.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-02-2013, 09:21 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I realize that the two industries need each other. It just always bugs me that the TV "universe" feels like they make all the hits, when it's just not true.

When did I ever say that? All I have said that quality tv in on the rise.

quote: Robert E. Allen
You've got that right Jarod. Unfortunately for exhibitors Hollywood has for the last couple of decades apparently developed the attitude that if a film is promoted heavily it will succeed. The public has gotten wise to that scam and is staying away from the boxoffice in droves.

Sorry Robert, a movie has to be heavily promoted. Even faith based films which you have supported have to be heavily promoted by your local churches. Church going folks have to be told by the preacher/priest/etc. that owe it to god to see these movies. Movies need to be promoted. And it costs a lot to promote a movie.

quote: Mike Blakesley
As for this summer, it's front-loaded, like always. There is room for more "tentpoles" in August.

It's been proven time and time again that people will go to movies any time of the year. Look at how they flocked to the first Ice Age or Rio or The Lorax, which all came out in early spring. We did just fine with Lincoln, which was a Christmas movie but didn't make it to the "hinterlands" until February.

It's the studios who can't seem to get over the idea that it must come out in the summer if it's a big movie. Every time something like "Hunger Games" comes along in the off season and does killer business, you would think they'd figure it out. People want to go to movies ALL year, not just summertime.

The studios are in charge. They release their movies when they feel they will get the biggest return. There are times when people are more likely to go the movies. Over Christmas we would see people who only go to movies once a year. Kids being out of school for the summer. Yes movies can do well in the spring and fall. I have long wished for movies those times a year too but the studios are reluctant to release the big titles then. As for August? Once you get into the 2nd week or so, it is all about going back to school. Money being spent on school, etc.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Actually 2012 boxoffice admissions were UP over 2011, as much as the doom-sayers hate to admit it as they're predicting the industry's demise (again).

The industry is stagnant at best. When you look at ticket sales vs population growth, ticket sales are down 20% for the high year you mentioned. Analysts like to see growth. This industry is not seeing growth. Especially the large chains striving for ways to increase ticket price with suites/lounges/premium experiences.

There are numerous reasons for that lack of growth/slight declines each year. From cost, to the poor economy (especially among teenagers), quality of TVs that we have in our home, to better TV programming, and many more.

Mike B., I have often said you did a great job in due diligence in buying your theater. This again shows what a good job you have done. Playing 3-4 week old movies allows you to only pick the best. That is a great luxury to have. Especially with just one screen to fill. (This is meant to be a compliment!)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2013, 12:06 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
The industry is stagnant at best. When you look at ticket sales vs population growth, ticket sales are down 20% for the high year you mentioned. Analysts like to see growth. This industry is not seeing growth. Especially the large chains striving for ways to increase ticket price with suites/lounges/premium experiences.

I guess it depends on how you define growth. For an analyst it's all numbers and nothing but numbers. But look at the difference between 10 years ago and now in terms of the different things competing for the entertainment dollar. 10 years ago movies took six months or more to come out on video, vs. 3 months today. YouTube was mostly for people putting up cute movies of their pets, not an actual entertainment channel. Movie piracy was barely happening. Broadband internet and video streaming was only for the wealthy and barely worked most of hte time. A large TV was 32 inches -- a big flat panel was thousands of dollars, not 800 or so like it is today. Nobody had smartphones to carry a movie collection with them. There was no iPhone, no iPad, no "cloud storage" and video games were crap-fests compared to today's games.

If the theatrical business is holding its own and even posting year over year increases in the face of all these other things competing for slices of the entertainment pie, that's something to celebrate!

As for your comment about chains doing all these various things to "enhance" the experience....when has that not been the norm? Ever since the addition of sound, theater owners have been adding the latest innovation.

I myself have been wondering where we would put the kitchen, in case the "dining at the movies" thing ever becomes an absolute necessity (which I hope it doesn't).

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-02-2013, 05:26 PM:

These are the numbers:

Average annual admissions per person is down over the last 10 years: 2003 - 5.28 per person, 2012 - 4.34 per person -19%

Annual Revenue: 2003 - $9.239 billion, 2012 - $10.835 +17%

Average ticket price: 2003 - $6.03, 2012 - $7.96 +32%

The last 4 years: -5.9%, -3.7%, +6.1% respectively

The premiums I have been seeing in Missouri are happening at the bigger chains and not the independents. B&B/AMC going with suites: alcohol, expanded food menus, over 21, etc. and of course bigger screens in their biggest auditoriums. Both of these are commanding a ticket premium of at least 10% up to 38% over their standard ticket prices.

I agree with the challenges the industry has faced. The DVR is one of the most important additions to my life. There is always something on my list to watch.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2013, 05:38 PM:

With or without competition, there'll be up years and down years. It's always been that way.