quote:
By Robert Wilonsky
rwilonsky@dallasnews.com
7:21 am on October 18, 2014
LOOK Cinemas, the self-proclaimed “luxury” multiplex on Belt Line Road, is accusing the mighty AMC Theatres of trying to poach its product — first-run movies. And what for now is just a war of words could serve as a teaser-trailer for the main attraction: a lawsuit.
The Chinese-owned chain, the world’s largest, is days away from opening the AMC Village on the Parkway 9 at Belt Line and the Dallas North Tollway. That’s less than a mile from the LOOK location, which opened March 2013.
According to LOOK founder Tom Stephenson, AMC, which has 350 theaters in the U.S. alone, has told distributors to choose between AMC or LOOK, which Stephenson finds especially troubling since LOOK has but the single location in North Dallas. He says it’s already impacting business: Lionsgate, he says, has told LOOK it’s putting The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 at the AMC multiplex when the film bows in mid-November, while Disney’s taking its Big Hero 6 to the Village on the Parkway on November 7.
“We played The Hunger Games: Catching Fire last year, and it was a hugely successful movie for us,” Stephenson says. But now, he says, “We’ve been told we can’t book it this year. AMC insisted on this clearance issue, so now you can’t see it here.”
Stephenson says he first found out about AMC’s campaign when he received a flier one of the chain’s film buyers sent to distributors in September. The flier, which is below, announces the October 31 soft-opening of the AMC Village on the Parkway 9, touts its amenities (“luxurious plush leather recliners,” a bar, etc.) and concludes by noting the existence of the LOOK just down the street.
“One last important point to know about our new theatre is that it is located less than 1 mile from Look Cinemas,” says the note from buyer Debbie Pennie. “As such, we will not be licensing films day-and-date with this theatre. In early November, we invite our guests to do moviegoing like it has never been done before!”
“And our interpretation of that statement is that AMC is trying to strong-arm the film distribution companies into giving them exclusivity with films,” says attorney Brett Johnson, a principal at Fish & Richardson. “They have a superior size not only here in Dallas but throughout the U.S., and they are raising the film distribution companies’ awareness that size matters.”
AMC’s director of corporate communications Ryan Noonan disputes LOOK’s allegations.
“The point that ‘AMC has told distributors not to give them first-run films’ is false,” he says via email. “For decades, standard industry practice has dictated that distributors allocate their movies between theatres that operate in close proximity to each other and compete for the same customers. Exhibitors and distributors have long agreed this practice ensures superior guest experience and film profitability. … These two theatres, located a mile away from each other, were in development at the same time and it should have been everyone’s expectation that this standard industry practice would apply. That’s the way the industry works.”
But this isn’t the first time AMC’s been accused of anti-competitive conduct.
In January Georgia-based Cobb Theaters filed a federal antitrust lawsuit that alleges AMC “has used its worldwide and national circuit power and its market power in a substantial number of geographic markets to coerce film distributors to deprive Cobb, its only competitor in one of the relevant geographic and product markets, of fair competitive access to films to exhibit to the public at its competing theater.” The suit alleges AMC is engaged in a “ruthless campaign” to crush the competition. AMC has denied the allegations and said the suit was brought solely because Cobb was “unable to best AMC in the marketplace.”
Johnson and Stephenson say they sent AMC a letter outlining their concerns.
“We told them such an agreement was anti-competitive and not in the best interest of the moviegoing public in Dallas,” Johnson says. “We also told them we hoped they would cease and that we’d have to consider all legal actions to protect the client and their customers.” He says AMC denied the allegations.
“But they also justified” trying to get the first-run films, Johnson says. “They said even if they were, it’s perfectly permissible. They also claimed, somehow, that it enhances competition.”
In the end, says Stephenson, he wants LOOK and AMC to have all the movies and let the customers decide where they want to see go. Do they want a chain experience, says Stephenson, or do they want to go to a place where they can wash down their sushi and steak with a Blackberry Bourbon Lemonade?
“Ours is a completely difference experience than going to NorthPark and buying popcorn,” says Stephenson. “Consumers have real choice. You can choose what kind of experience you want. We have as much market share from Highland Park as we do from around here [in far North Dallas]. Why should you tell someone they can’t have wine and a steak when they see a movie if that’s the movie they want to see?”
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Andrew ThomasCompetition would be if each company could bid on the product and then somebody gets it. It would also help keep ticket prices nice and stable. Allowing each theater to have the same product would do nothing, the distributor wins. The best case is for both LOOK and AMC to split the available product.
Competition would be to allow each theater to play the product and let consumers choose which experience they prefer.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensBecause it is not the every day variety of movies that the two would be fighting over. Yes, having those split would help consumers, giving them more variety of choices. It is the big blockbusters that should be at both that will be used as fighting pieces, when really they should show at both. I agree that back with film, they had to do it that way, because there was a HUGE investment on the part of the film company in the prints themselves. Now there is not. There is no reason to limit theaters. And larger chains will take advantage of their buying power. Especially corporations, where there is no personal responsibility to be a human being. In a fight like this not only does the smaller theater get hurt, so does the consumer. Instead if it were fair, both sides would have to try to provide the better service, atmosphere, sound, etc. Still the larger chain has the advantage, but at least it is better for the consumer.
Brad, it makes no sense to have the same product at both theaters. Please explain how it could possibly benefit anyone other than the distributors?
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
quote:Link
Big Chains Put a Lock on First-Run Movies
Independent Theaters Can End Up With Older Films When Powerful Exhibitors Press Hollywood
By ERICH SCHWARTZEL and BEN FRITZ
Oct. 19, 2014 2:47 p.m. ET
When Mickey Altman opened Viva Cinema in Houston in 2013, he thought the theater was a blockbuster investment. A 42,000-square-foot complex designed to appeal to the region’s growing Hispanic population, it featured eight auditoriums, a cantina serving Mexican dishes and a party room.
But it turned out he was lacking a key ingredient: Popular new releases.
AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., the nation’s second-largest exhibitor, told major Hollywood studios that it wouldn’t play most new movies at its location about three miles away if they also played at Viva Cinema.
It was no contest: The studios agreed to AMC’s exclusivity requests on title after title, leaving Mr. Altman’s theater with scraps. Viva opened in May, when “Fast & Furious 6” was driving ticket sales. Viva’s marquee movie? Two-month old animated comedy “The Croods.” Time and again, Viva had to play out-of-date movies, such as “World War Z” in September, when it had been released in June.
Viva closed last November, after Mr. Altman said he lost millions of dollars in business on the theater.
From Atlanta to the San Diego suburb of La Jolla, more cinema operators say they are being blocked from booking hot new releases.
Called “clearance” in industry parlance, the exclusivity practice allows theater chains to tell Hollywood studios they will screen a movie in a particular market only if nearby competitors can’t.
Once widespread, clearance practices faded in the 1990s as the industry came to be dominated by a few large multiplex operators. But in the past few years, a small but growing class of independent movie-theater companies has risen, targeting specific groups such as Latinos and affluent customers. The owners of several of these cinemas claim their growth is being hampered because too often they can’t get the best movies.
“The use of clearances had been slowing in the movie industry,” said Jack Foley, a veteran studio distribution executive. “But recently they’re making a comeback.”
The practice affects millions of Americans by limiting where they can see popular movies. According to theater operators and distribution executives, the tactic has been used particularly aggressively by the nation’s three largest theater chains—AMC, Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings . Collectively, they control about 42% of the nation’s movie screens.
The big chains argue that the trend merely follows the rules of the road for the exhibition industry and that in competitive areas, exclusivity requests are to be expected.
A spokesman for AMC said the company requests exclusivity on certain titles for only 28 of its 341 locations. In the majority of cases, he said, it is competing with locations owned by fellow titans Regal or Cinemark—not the smaller newcomers.
In a statement, Regal said exclusivity agreements allow studios to “cost-effectively distribute their movies [and] allow exhibitors to compete for film content.
Cinemark didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The renewed use of these arrangements has generated lawsuits and even government scrutiny: Two theater executives said they recently spoke with the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, which has been seeking information on the issue. The practice isn’t the subject of a formal DOJ investigation, according to people familiar with the matter.
Defenders of the practice point out that it is ultimately up to the studios whether to grant a theater chain’s request for exclusivity. Distribution executives—the people at studios who book movies into theaters—say they typically would prefer to play a new release on as many screens as possible. When clearance requests force them to choose between multiple theaters in a market, executives say they go with the location they believe will generate the highest ticket sales—regardless of its owner.
But independent operators maintain they are too often on the losing end of such battles.
Cobb Theatres, which operates 20 theaters including one near two AMC locations in Atlanta, sued AMC in January in U.S. District Court in Georgia, accusing the theater chain of violating antitrust law and using its “world-wide and national circuit power” to “deny their competitors... fair competitive access to films so as to drive them out of business.”
AMC declined to comment on pending litigation.
Cinépolis Luxury Cinemas, a major Mexican luxury chain breaking into the U.S. market, estimates it has walked away from one-third of the 200 sites it has scouted for theaters because of clearance concerns, said the chief executive of its U.S. operation, Adrian Mijares Elizondo.
Exclusivity agreements have traditionally been most common during booms in building or renovating theaters. To protect their investments, theater owners sometimes seek to limit nearby competition, usually within a radius of three miles or so.
In recent years, a number of independent exhibitors such as iPic Theaters, Reading International Inc.’s Angelika Film Center, and Landmark Theatres, owned by billionaires Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner, have been building new high-end locations that compete for moviegoers willing to pay sometimes more than $20 a ticket, plus extra for gourmet food and drinks delivered to their seats.
AMC, meanwhile, isn’t sitting still. Fueled by cash after being acquired by China’s Dalian Wanda Group Corp. in 2012 and a public stock offering last year, it is in the midst of a $600 million effort to upgrade 1,800 of its 5,000 auditoriums with leather recliners and other amenities.
Exclusivity, as AMC points out, doesn’t always involve a David vs. Goliath scenario. Regal, for example, is currently trying to “clear” a theater under construction by Cinemark in a coastal Los Angeles neighborhood, according to people familiar with the situation.
Independents are trying the tactic against each other, too. Landmark is currently engaged in one such battle against a soon-to-launch ArcLight Cinemas location in Bethesda, Md., according to people familiar with the matter.
Still, theater operators like Rudyard Coltman often end up being the underdogs. Mr. Coltman delayed by a week the May opening of his Cinetopia 18 multiplex in Overland Park, Kan., after hearing from Time Warner Inc. ’s Warner Bros. that AMC had already requested exclusive rights in the neighborhood to “Godzilla,” the only major new release the weekend he’d planned to open.
While the studios haven’t kept every new release out of Cinetopia, they do alternate their biggest titles between it and AMC Town Center 20—a renovated multiplex about three miles away. Mr. Coltman said he has missed out on hits like “Guardians of the Galaxy,” keeping box-office revenues 30% to 50% lower than he had projected. Hamid Hashemi, CEO of the iPic luxury chain, said he was in negotiations this July to build a new location in Dallas when AMC sent a letter to studios saying it would request exclusivity on certain titles if the theater was built.
That same day, Mr. Hashemi was told by studio distribution executives, Regal called to say it would seek films exclusively if he went through with plans to build a separate iPic theater in Houston. Mr. Hashemi added that such notifications make it harder to convince real-estate developers that leasing to him will be worthwhile.
Gerry Lopez, chief executive at AMC, said representatives from his company often talk with landlords eyeing potential development and will make it known if they think a site would be subject to clearance.
In a statement, Regal said exclusivity agreements allow studios to “provide consumers with the variety of movies that they enjoy,” adding it expects the practice to continue “for many years to come.”
quote:Regal, AMC and any other chain involved in this unethical horseshit just need to shut their mouths when claiming exclusivity agreements are beneficial to customers. Baloney. It's only bad for customers. They're insulting our intelligence by suggesting otherwise.
In a statement, Regal said exclusivity agreements allow studios to “provide consumers with the variety of movies that they enjoy,” adding it expects the practice to continue “for many years to come.”
quote: Bobby HendersonWell, as long as you realize who ultimately matters
I can't think of anyone other than stock investors who would benefit from the theater industry becoming consolidated, merged, vertically integrated and ultimately monopolized.
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
quote: Bobby HendersonAnd you would be correct!!
I've never visited a Cinetopia location before, but I'd be willing to bet the new Cinetopia theater in the Kansas City metro is a damned sight better than the AMC location nearby that's screwing it out of a lot of first run movies.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Steve GuttagWouldn't it be better if a large bunch of those independents that are affected by those selective release tactics to sue the studios and AMC?
Wouldn't it be a hoot if a studio sued a chain like AMC for Monopolistic practices?
quote: Frank B. McLaughlinNothing... expect hope the studios got smart and stood up to the bullies.
All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere. Just what can your small complex do?
quote: Frank B. McLaughlinI highly doubt that is going to happen. All the studio cares about is which theater (AMC vs LOOK) is going to make them more money on each release they have. Having the movies play day and date at both theaters is a really stupid idea, it just gives the studio even more power and effectively ends long play runs(an advantage for the exhibitor) at a given location and it will further increase the studios take at the box office. It will also drive prices lower and one of the theaters (most likely LOOK) will be out of business soon than later. Also, people are not going to choose LOOK over AMC if the AMC prices are lower.
Now take a look at the studio side: these megaplex chain locations can play EVERYTHING right down the release schedule. All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere. Just what can your small complex do? There are no longer enough indies in the various markets to fill any void - the chains have blown them all out. And just try proving that in court.
quote: Frank B. McLaughlinThis only works if there is no competition as well as limited or at capacity screens across a network or region. The power is then in the exhibitors hands.
All the chain has to do is tell the studio that if they don't behave in a manner friendly to the chain the studio can forget about a film being played by the chain anywhere.
quote: Edward HavensI'm pretty sure what they're doing is anti-competitive and rather illegal. They're clearly dividing the market and making illegal arrangements about it.
Nothing... expect hope the studios got smart and stood up to the bullies.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensWhat?! Shouldn't they care about making the most money with any given release in a certain area? How would they make less money if multiple competing theaters play the same movies?
All the studio cares about is which theater (AMC vs LOOK) is going to make them more money on each release they have.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensCare to explain what extra magic powers appear for studios from this more open playing field for competing movie theaters?
Having the movies play day and date at both theaters is a really stupid idea, it just gives the studio even more power and effectively ends long play runs(an advantage for the exhibitor) at a given location and it will further increase the studios take at the box office.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensSo, this whole premium PLF and D-IMAX stuff you've been defending is also bullshit then? Because people are not going to spend the extra dime for a "better" experience, price is the only differentiating factor?
It will also drive prices lower and one of the theaters (most likely LOOK) will be out of business soon than later. Also, people are not going to choose LOOK over AMC if the AMC prices are lower.
quote: Marcel BirgelenMarcel, you read too much into what I said. If the studio has to choose between two locations, they would choose the location that grosses more.
What?! Shouldn't they care about making the most money with any given release in a certain area? How would they make less money if multiple competing theaters play the same movies?
quote: Marcel BirgelenThe two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem and the other is issue is LOOK is a luxury cinema with a limited number of available seats, AMC did the correct thing by saying that they will not be licensing the same movies as LOOK. AMC has the potential to move more people in and out of their theater just by seat count alone, when Avengers 2 comes out, the studio is going to want the max seats available. This gives AMC an advantage. The leverage is in the AMC court.
Care to explain what extra magic powers appear for studios from this more open playing field for competing movie theaters?
quote: Marcel BirgelenMarcel, AMC has the power to offer lower prices and lower concession prices than LOOK, even though it could be considered predatory pricing, AMC could drive LOOK out of business pretty quickly. LOOK would have to eventually lower their prices as would clearly not be able to maintain their market share by offering the same films as AMC.
So, this whole premium PLF and D-IMAX stuff you've been defending is also bullshit then? Because people are not going to spend the extra dime for a "better" experience, price is the only differentiating factor?
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensAnd, why exactly, besides those anti-competitive arrangements everybody here is talking about, would the studio even have to choose between two locations in the same area? Are we close to running out of bits? Does the presence of multiple hard disks containing the same movie increase the risk of uncontrolled black holes appearing out of nowhere?
Marcel, you read too much into what I said. If the studio has to choose between two locations, they would choose the location that grosses more.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensAnd if both theaters would get a copy of The Avengers 2, some people that would have shown up at AMC would show up at LOOK, because they like it better. LOOK might even attract customers that would otherwise not go to AMC. The end result will be: at least the same amount of tickets sold in the same period, probably even a few more.
The two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem and the other is issue is LOOK is a luxury cinema with a limited number of available seats, AMC did the correct thing by saying that they will not be licensing the same movies as LOOK. AMC has the potential to move more people in and out of their theater just by seat count alone, when Avengers 2 comes out, the studio is going to want the max seats available. This gives AMC an advantage. The leverage is in the AMC court.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensLast time I checked the only requirements for PLF seem to be unmasked screens, 2K projectors, someone pushing the volume a little too far and some whiz bang, bullshit marketing.
Marcel, AMC has the power to offer lower prices and lower concession prices than LOOK, even though it could be considered predatory pricing, AMC could drive LOOK out of business pretty quickly. LOOK would have to eventually lower their prices as would clearly not be able to maintain their market share by offering the same films as AMC.
The PLF thing is irrelevant, LOOK does not have anything that would be considered PLF compared to AMC Prime.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensTerry, you ought to look up the specifics about LOOK Cinemas before making claims about what they have and don't have in their theaters. This speciality theater is serving 3 different niches: small luxury "director's suite" style screening rooms, in theater dining rooms and big screen experiences. LOOK's two "Evolution" screens are comparable to other digital big screen theater concepts. Both Evolution screens happen to feature Dolby Atmos, making LOOK Cinemas the only theater in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro to have more than one Atmos-equipped screen under the same roof. There's a lot of so-called "PLF" screens that don't have any next-gen sound format. The new AMC location opening nearby will have only one "Prime" screen.
The PLF thing is irrelevant, LOOK does not have anything that would be considered PLF compared to AMC Prime.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensThere are some locations where it doesn't matter. I remember reading once about two complexes in New York, I think, that were less than a block from each other...but both played the same movies. They competed on their actual merits, not by forcing the public to choose one or the other.
The two locations are too close together, that is the biggest problem
quote: Mike BlakesleyHow many movie-going markets of any significant size does AMC have all to itself? I can't think of any. If AMC wanted to boycott a certain movie in its Dallas-Fort Worth area theaters moviegoers would have plenty of other theaters to visit (SMG, Cinemark, Harkins, UA, etc.).
This is all about one chain, AMC, trying to corner the market. If both cinemas get the same movies, then everyone else (moviegoers, LOOK Cinema, the studios) benefit but AMC loses out on some ticket sales. The studios will not lose one red cent UNLESS AMC decides to not play their movie in some other locations as "punishment." Thus the only thing AMC has going for it is sheer size.
quote:You are missing what AMC is actually doing. They are saying "If you don't give us exclusive product against LOOK in Dallas, we won't play your film in any of our theaters."
Can you imagine AMC saying they wouldn't play "Avengers: Age of Ultron"? Neither can I, especially with all those IMAX digital screens. Disney has all the power. If AMC doesn't like how Disney is allocating playdates for "Avengers," AMC isn't going to say "Well, then, we're not going to play 'Tomorrowland' or 'Inside Out' or 'Ant-Man' or 'The Jungle Book.'" AMC isn't going to watch as 100% of the area gross goes to LOOK for every one of these movies in this one area. If push came to shove, and Disney said "Fine, if you don't like that your new theatre is going to day and date with this already established theatre in this area, then you don't get the product," AMC will go "Oh, okay. We'll day and date with LOOK." Because 40-60% of the area gross is better than 0%.
quote: Andrew ThomasActually I don't think that's what happening.
You are missing what AMC is actually doing. They are saying "If you don't give us exclusive product against LOOK in Dallas, we won't play your film in any of our theaters."
quote: Mike BlakesleyI agree that it usually is a big game of chicken, but there are many instances where the exhibitor has a lot leverage in negotiating with the studios. If there is a competing exhibitor in the area then the negotiating leverage can diminish, but it still depends of what theater can make the most money for the studio.
It's just a big game of chicken is all. Considering the studios are now supposedly all about letting people watch their products "when and where they want" no matter what, I'm surprised this clearance issue is still an issue.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensWell we all know that with the studios "money talks," so a 10-seat theater would never be able to out-book a 200-seat one. So that's what the issue is all about. The question is whether AMC really would refuse to book big blockbuster movies in a bunch (or even one) of their locations just to beat up on a studio. My guess is, they would back down.
if a 10 seat/one auditorium luxury theater were to open up two doors away from your Roxy cinema, who would still have the negotiating power when a new release (such as Avenger 2) were to open, the small 10 seat luxury theater or your 250+ seat Roxy cinema?
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensThe point is, it shouldn't matter. The fact that there would be some negotiating power would already confirm illegal market manipulation.
Or how about this? Respectively (we have had our differences), if a 10 seat/one auditorium luxury theater were to open up two doors away from your Roxy cinema, who would still have the negotiating power when a new release (such as Avenger 2) were to open, the small 10 seat luxury theater or your 250+ seat Roxy cinema?
quote: Bobby HendersonThe studios disagree. I have a 3 screen, all digital, no competition within 40 miles, with no VPF that averages $7k per movie and gets turned down to open stuff on the break at least once a month
It's always going to be better for a movie distributor to have their new movie playing at more theater locations.
quote: Mike BlakesleyI don't think the studios would have any problem giving AMC what they want, around Toronto that was the norm for at least 30 years for all downtown Toronto locations and many in the subs.
The question is whether AMC really would refuse to book big blockbuster movies in a bunch (or even one) of their locations just to beat up on a studio.
quote: Lots of peopleWhat does "PLF" stand for? Pretend Large Format? Patrons Losing Funds? Place of Laughable Features?
PLF
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Andrew ThomasI don't think anyone has ever accused movie studio executives of being smart and logical 100% of the time. Even though they continue to play unfair games with small/independent theater operators the studios are hurting themselves with those games. They're just pushing more potential customers in those markets to watching the movies at home on increasingly cheap platforms, like Netflix.
The studios disagree. I have a 3 screen, all digital, no competition within 40 miles, with no VPF that averages $7k per movie and gets turned down to open stuff on the break at least once a month
quote: Joe RediferPretend Large Format would be accurate.
What does "PLF" stand for? Pretend Large Format? Patrons Losing Funds? Place of Laughable Features?
quote: Mike SpaethThat's another thing I don't understand about small town and independent theaters in the United States not being able to open a lot of movies on the break. These movie studios are releasing at least some of their movies internationally, simultaneously in as many as 2 dozen or more countries. The studios used to platform it out on a staggered schedule in the days of film print distribution. They're increasingly putting it all out there at once. Maybe the studios are doing that to make the most of the initial marketing campaign, especially with how it plays out internationally on the Internet and social media. Maybe there's also an angle of thwarting piracy. More people will see the movie in theaters rather than on the Internet illegally if the movie is playing in theaters as early as possible. Nevertheless, it doesn't make any sense to have a theater in some small town in the US get a new movie weeks after it opened in many other parts of the world.
I agree that in a post-VPF world clearances should not exist. Nowhere else in the world outside of North America does this concept exist. The studios play day and date next door in Europe, India, etc.
quote: Andrew ThomasWait a second... Are these the same people who insist that sending everything "direct to video" is just around the corner?
... the studios know that they need to keep happy the chains that represent damn near 50% of their revenue.
quote: Mike SpaethAnd keep in mind: even in the heydays of 35mm, print availability never really was that big of a problem, even for most of the small town cinemas in Europe.
Nowhere else in the world outside of North America does this concept exist. The studios play day and date next door in Europe, India, etc.
quote: Bobby HendersonLike you already put it: for big features, it would be a total waste of marketing efforts to open those features in major markets across the globe with weeks in between.
That's another thing I don't understand about small town and independent theaters in the United States not being able to open a lot of movies on the break. These movie studios are releasing at least some of their movies internationally, simultaneously in as many as 2 dozen or more countries. The studios used to platform it out on a staggered schedule in the days of film print distribution. They're increasingly putting it all out there at once. Maybe the studios are doing that to make the most of the initial marketing campaign, especially with how it plays out internationally on the Internet and social media. Maybe there's also an angle of thwarting piracy. More people will see the movie in theaters rather than on the Internet illegally if the movie is playing in theaters as early as possible. Nevertheless, it doesn't make any sense to have a theater in some small town in the US get a new movie weeks after it opened in many other parts of the world.
quote: Jack OndracekYeah, the same people. But they would probably also do it via exclusive deals via iTunes, Netflix, the works... Probably as long as the money that doesn't explicitly show up as "motivational fees and services" in any balance sheet keeps flowing in sufficient quantities.
Wait a second... Are these the same people who insist that sending everything "direct to video" is just around the corner?
quote: Andrew ThomasYou either completely misread what I wrote, or chose to ignore it to make a point I was already making.
You are missing what AMC is actually doing. They are saying "If you don't give us exclusive product against LOOK in Dallas, we won't play your film in any of our theaters."
quote:Yeah, newsflash: the decades of print scarcity are over. Shouldn't be such a quote alone already be sufficient evidence in court of anti-competitive market manipulation being present?
For decades, standard industry practice has dictated that distributors allocated their movies between theaters that operate in close proximity to each other.
quote: Jason BurroughsI don't think AMC is afraid of anything, they just know that the L
What is AMC afraid of? Why be so noncompetitive?
K cinemas will not be able to sustain operations if they do not have complete access to all of the product. It should be interesting but I think AMC will win the fight.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensThe only way this would be a good thing would be if the AMC provides a superior product(presentation). The chances of that are slim to none.
AMC simply said they will not license films day and date with Look. So in essence it is up to the studio to choose either AMC or Look. I don't work for AMC but from the way I see it, AMC will make the studio more money, (just my opinion) and the studios will continue to give the product to AMC.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensWhich essentially means, "If you give movies to those guys ("Look") then we won't play your movies." I assume it means in their other theaters in that area. So if they've got several complexes in the vicinity and Look only has the one complex, it's easy to see who'll win that fight.
AMC simply said they will not license films day and date with Look.
quote: Jason BurroughsWhy be open to competition when you can operate as a monopoly? Capitalism 101: make all the money you can, any way you can. It's not, and never has been, about the customers.
If AMC was open to competition they would play day & date and let the consumer choose.
quote: Jason BurroughsTerry is trolling, same as usual.
Terry, who do you work for?
K" comment earlier just shows what he's trying to do. It also ruins any credibility for anything he says, provided he had any credibility in the first place.quote: Jason BurroughsAMC could do that, but I actually suspect the opposite. Big chains like AMC, Regal, etc. want the entire exhibition business to themselves. They don't want "little guy" independents letting customers realize the biggest chains still have a carbon copy, cookie cutter, fast food approach to the movie-going experience. Small chains like Warren Theaters can kick their ass all over the place in a given market when given a fair chance.
What is there to prevent any large chain from undercutting and underbidding a smaller circuit or independent? The smaller players would not have the critical mass and deeper pockets to support a loss leader.
quote: Martin McCafferyThat is spot on. AMC has no concern about their competition, their goal is to be #1 in the marketplace and if it puts the competition out of business then so be it, as sad as it is that is the goal. The studios do not care either, they will go with the theater that will make them the most money.
Why be open to competition when you can operate as a monopoly? Capitalism 101: make all the money you can, any way you can. It's not, and never has been, about the customers.
quote: Steve DaileySo are these three theaters all within one-mile apart?
The AMC theater isn't playing the "Hunger Games" sequel, but the Cinetopia is, as well as a former Dickinson 16-screen complex barely a mile distant.
quote: Terry Lynn-StevensTheir Ontario, CA 30-plex referred to earlier is 0.24 miles from the Edwards/Regal and not even a distance down the road. That's the distance walking through the parking lot.
So are these three theaters all within one-mile apart?
quote: Gerry Lopez, AMCLOOK made some bad business calls? What kind of rope was Gerry smoking? LOOK was built in that part of North Dallas first. AMC's location there is the late comer, yet acting entitled to all the choice movie releases.
“There are 600-plus exhibitors in this country,” he told the paper. “There are three or four exhibitors who are irritated by it. My guess is they have made some bad business calls and they’re trying to figure out a way out of a bad situation by alleging stuff and in some cases going to court.”
quote:I wouldn't be surprised to see Paramount doing LOOK a favor or two. LOOK arguably had one of the best showcases to see Paramount's release of Interstellar in 5-perf 70mm. The theater owner spent a bunch of money altering the booth to fit the 70mm gear alongside the d-cinema gear.
LOOK has launched an online petition that says “you should choose where you see a movie, not AMC.” And a few weeks ago, Stephenson took his fight with AMC to the movie-makers, sending studio chiefs a missive in which he says Paramount has decided to “end clearances in the Dallas, Texas area between Look Cinema and AMC’s Village on the Parkway 9.” He also writes that “AMC is using clearances as a competitive weapon to prevent new market entrants from building near AMC theaters.”
quote: Bobby HendersonI don't know the final tally of money spent on that, but it was something around $100k I believe to modify that building and such to play that one movie. They will however be in an excellent position to run Tarantino's 2.76:1 ratio 70mm film properly the way their entire front end was redesigned though.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Paramount doing LOOK a favor or two. LOOK arguably had one of the best showcases to see Paramount's release of Interstellar in 5-perf 70mm. The theater owner spent a bunch of money altering the booth to fit the 70mm gear alongside the d-cinema gear.
quote: Brad MillerThis is actually a good argument. Even 10 minutes one way or the other can make a difference. People like to make plans and movies are just one of those plans. If two theaters that were close to each other had the same exact showtimes, then that'd just be dumb.
The patrons will have more flexibility in their showtime options
quote: Brad MillerAnd this is the best reason. It's actual competition. Competition is good. It would improve the quality of BOTH theaters. Shouldn't studios want their movie to be seen in the best way is can be seen? So it benefits them for sure. If one of the theaters didn't care, they'd likely make a lot less money. And that also is a good thing.
The patrons also get the ability to choose which theater they like, which translates to the competing buildings working harder to make their experience BETTER
quote: Joe RediferThey should, but as has been the case since about 1895, they don't.
Shouldn't studios want their movie to be seen in the best way is can be seen?
quote:Original article was here: web page
U.S. steps up scrutiny of movie distribution
By Richard Verrier -- Los Angeles Times -- May 12, 2015
At a time when the box office is booming, the business practices of the nation's largest theater chains are coming under growing scrutiny by the federal government.
The Department of Justice recently ordered Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. and Cinemark Holdings Inc. to supply documents as part of a widening investigation into whether the largest theater chains violated federal antitrust laws, three people familiar with the investigation said.
The government is examining allegations from independent theater owners across the country that the big chains are using their market clout to block smaller rivals from receiving first-run movies.
The issuance of civil investigative demands, or administrative subpoenas, signals a significant escalation in the Justice Department probe, which launched several months ago but has accelerated in recent weeks.
The department also has assembled a task force of attorneys and economists to examine a business practice known as clearances, license agreements in which theaters obtain permission from studios to exclusively show first-run movies in their theaters within certain zones, thereby blocking nearby rivals from playing the same movie at the same time.
Task force members already interviewed executives from at least three independent theaters in Florida, Texas and Kansas, people with knowledge of the probe said. This week they are expected to meet with executives with Cobb Theatres, a Birmingham, Ala.-based chain with 20 theaters.
The investigation is being closely watched in the exhibition industry and in Hollywood because it could force changes in how major motion pictures are distributed and lead to costly fines for the big chains.
"This is the sort of thing that antitrust is particularly worried about," said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School and an expert on antitrust law. "Do we have a few dominant players entering into deals that make it harder for independent companies to establish themselves and gain ground?"
Industry insiders expect the government's investigation will last at least six months to a year.
Although violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act are subject to criminal penalties, the Justice Department would more likely file a civil lawsuit against theaters that could be resolved through a consent decree. Such a decree could include fines and possibly an injunction that would bar use of blanket clearances.
The government investigation could also open the door to more antitrust lawsuits, in which plaintiffs can receive treble damages.
AMC, Cinemark and Regal declined to comment. But theater and some studio executives have previously defended the use of clearances, contending they provide an efficient way for studios to allocate movies and protect competing theaters from diluting their grosses by having too many film runs in a given area.
"One has to remember that film clearances, they've existed for many years and we believe they have because they are beneficial to the studios, they are beneficial to exhibition and they are beneficial to consumers," Regal Entertainment Chief Executive Amy Miles said in a recent conference call with analysts.
The use of clearances developed after a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1948 that required studios to divest their ownership in movie theaters. Clearances were initially seen as a way to guarantee that small, independent theaters would gain access to first-run films, allowing the industry to grow rapidly.
But as the industry has increasingly consolidated — about half of all theater screens are owned by three companies — tensions between large chains and independent theater chains have heightened. Because they control so many screens, big chains have more leverage with studios in terms of where and when movies play across their circuits.
In 2006, the owners of the Palme d'Or, a seven-screen specialty theater in Palm Desert, sued Texas-based Cinemark, the nation's third-largest chain.
Flagship Theatres, whose owners include "Breaking Bad" star Bryan Cranston, alleged that Cinemark, which operates a cinema in nearby Rancho Mirage, was "circuit dealing" by threatening to retaliate against movie studios that booked films in the Palme d'Or. The case is pending.
In court filings, Cinemark has argued that its business practices are lawful and that the company did not have sufficient strength in the Coachella Valley market to stifle competition.
Another legal dispute erupted last year when Cobb Theatres sued AMC in U.S. District Court in Georgia. Cobb, which operates 20 theaters, accused AMC of using its "monopoly power" to block some first-run movies from being screened at upscale cinema and dining complex in Brookhaven, a suburb of Atlanta. The suit alleges that AMC convinced studios to give two nearby AMC theaters in Buckhead preferential treatment.
AMC denied the allegations and moved to dismiss the case. A federal judge in March allowed it to proceed.
The chain has been especially aggressive in enforcing clearances in the three years since China's Dalian Wanda Group acquired AMC for $2.6 billion.
AMC sought clearances for a dozen theaters, including cinemas in Harlem and La Jolla, that it viewed as "predatory competitors," according to an internal memo obtained by The Times.
The Leawood, Kan., chain has been investing heavily in upgrading its theaters with new amenities as well as opening cinemas that offer premium food and beverage service. The expansion has put it at odds with new independent theaters that also are targeting affluent customers with luxury services.
Among them is Look Cinemas in Dallas, Texas.
Veteran industry executive Tom Stephenson and his partners invested $20 million to open a luxury 11-screen theater in May 2013 in an affluent suburb of Dallas at which patrons can order food and drinks in plush recliners.
But Stephenson says Look Cinemas, which was included in AMC's list of "predatory competitors," has been starved of blockbuster movies such as "Avengers: Age of Ultron."
In a recent letter to studio executives, he complained that AMC was using clearances to steer business to an AMC venue that opened last fall.
"What AMC has done is say, 'I can use this to help take production away from smaller theaters,'" Stephenson said."They're using it as a weapon."
IPic Entertainment, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based chain that operates 11 luxury theaters — including locations in Pasadena and Westwood — also has contacted the Justice Department. IPic alleges that Regal and AMC have used the threat of clearances to thwart competition.
Hamid Hashemi, CEO of IPic, said he was in negotiations with a developer to open a theater in a suburb of Dallas last summer when he learned that AMC had sent a letter to studio distribution executives saying the proposed IPic theater would be in "substantial competition" with a smaller AMC multiplex two miles away that didn't have similar services. In the letter, AMC asked studios to approve clearances in "that particular film licensing zone."
AMC and Dolby are teaming up to build 100 high-tech theaters
On the same day, Hashemi said studio distribution executives told him they had received a similar clearance request from Regal involving a separate 500-seat theater under construction in Houston.
"Clearances are legal, but the use of clearances as a threat to preempt competition, that's another story," Hashemi said.
Rudyard Coltman opened a state-of-the-art $25-million multiplex in Overland Park, Kan., last May. The Cinetopia-18 includes a restaurant, extra-wide seats where patrons can order food and drinks, and a 75-foot-wide Imax screen. But Coltman says AMC, which operates a theater less than two miles away, is using its buying power to keep premium large format films like "Fast & Furious 7" and "Avengers" away from Cinetopia. As a result, he said, business is 50% below projections.
"All year long we've been denied the majority of these pictures," Coltman said. "We've gotten killed by clearances."
AMC Chief Executive Gerry Lopez defended his company's use of clearances.
"The fact of the matter is we are playing by rules that have been long established," Lopez told The Times last month. "There are 600-plus exhibitors in this country. There are three or four exhibitors who are irritated by it. My guess is they have made some bad business calls."
quote:I would like to ask Amy: How exactly is it beneficial to consumers to limit their choices of what theater they can see a movie in? And "beneficial to exhibition" -- well, it's beneficial to AMC but what about the other guy? And how is it beneficial to the studios when there are LESS available seats to sell?
"One has to remember that film clearances, they've existed for many years and we believe they have because they are beneficial to the studios, they are beneficial to exhibition and they are beneficial to consumers," Regal Entertainment Chief Executive Amy Miles said in a recent conference call with analysts.
quote: Steve DaileyThe Cinetopia location in Overland Park may not have an IMAX-branded screen, but two "GXL" screens equipped with Dolby Atmos, a detail the article did not mention. The competing AMC has one Prime screen with Dolby Atmos (soon to be converted to Dolby Cinema). An IMAX-branded theater equipped with twin 4K laser projectors might peak my interest, but the vast majority are using mere 2K based Xenon systems. Cinetopia seems like a much nicer theater than the AMC location.
The Cinetopia definitely does not have an IMAX auditorium. Three of the screens are nearly IMAX size though. The AMC he speaks of - the Leawood Town Center 20 - does have an IMAX audtitorium. Was Coltman misdescribing his own complex? But otherwise I wholeheartedly agree that it's wrong what AMC is doing here.
quote:Fun fact: On secret shopper reports in that company, Presentation(picture AND sound quality) is worth 3 points out of 100. But clearly more importantly, suggestive/upselling is worth 11 points.
"One has to remember that film clearances, they've existed for many years and we believe they have because they are beneficial to the studios, they are beneficial to exhibition and they are beneficial to consumers," Regal Entertainment Chief Executive Amy Miles said in a recent conference call with analysts.
quote: Scott D. NeffNot every theater has to have every movie. Let's say I have 8 screens and you have 56. I'm gonna be a lot more selective about what I play whereas you'll be forced to play everything and have 9 prints of it just to fill screens. Sure, sometimes a flop will happen and movies bomb. That's business. But mostly it forces theaters to compete and that is a good thing. Would you want to watch the movie at the corporate megaplex with no life and/or personality or the less-corporate smaller theater that just might care about the customer more than they do about upselling. If this hurts the big boys, then big deal! I really don't care. That's how competition works. That's how it should ALWAYS work.
If the crappy movie Hollywood made only has X number of people interested in seeing it, can ANY theatre make a profit from showing it if they're only each getting 20% of the audience
quote: Jonathan GoeldnerThere are still two big things missing from the DTS-X announcement we still don't know:
Regal has built a couple new theaters in the DC metro area with RPX screens but NOT with Atmos, that's a major head scratcher, (although there was a news blurb from last year that those screens might get the Auro 11.1 conversion.)
I think everyone should have waited til DTS-X's announcement
quote: Jonathan GoeldnerTheatre 2 is 7.1, the rest are 5.1 (unless they have made any additional updates though I doubt it).
Mazza is only 5.1 on all it's screens
quote: Jonathan GoeldnerThere's also the Regal Ballston 12 and the AMC Courthouse 8 in Arlington (1.8 miles apart). One of the very few times I can think of that both showed the same movie at the same time was the Oscar buzz re-release of The Departed in January 2007.
the two screens in the DC metro area that do seem to be 'too close' in proximity and toggle movie bookings are Cinemark Fairfax Corner 14 and Regal Fairfax Towne Center 10 (of a distance of 2.3 miles separating the two).
quote: Mike FreseWhat are you doing, taking over for Terry?
We have seen for many years that many if not most consumers do not care about the presentation that much.
quote: Mike FreseI can see why someone who works in a theatre could form that jaded opinion, but it is not correct. The issue is not that they don't care, but that they don't complain no matter how bad the presentation or how seedy the facility. What they do, however, is avoid coming back.
We have seen for many years that many if not most consumers do not care about the presentation that much.
quote: Mike BlakesleyAMC Tyson's must have hated me - when the ETX screen debuted, there were a lot of bugs about the system - notably during 3D screenings. For every negative aspect I had to point out I felt obliged to also praise them when they got it right.
What are you doing, taking over for Terry?
As professionals in this industry we should all know that it's NOT THE CUSTOMER'S JOB to care about the presentation. It should be as flawless and impressive as possible in order to "wow" the moviegoer as much as possible.
It is OUR JOB to care about the presentation - not the customer's. The customer should be able to just walk out in awe of the good experience he just had.
quote: Mike BlakesleyThis could best be summed up as "Just because you don't have any complaints doesn't mean that there isn't anything wrong". A lot of theaters seem to thrive on the "no complaints" mentality which is always the wrong mentality to have.
It is OUR JOB to care about the presentation - not the customer's. The customer should be able to just walk out in awe of the good experience he just had.
quote: Bobby HendersonI was at the Cinetopia last night. They are not running "Pitch Perfect 2" as well as "Avengers: Age of Ultron". I was 30 minutes early but the place was a ghost town (highly unusual for a Saturday night). The big GXL auditorium was 2/3 empty; I have to wonder how packed the AMC theaters were. Cinetopia even had a dude in a "Mad Max"-like getup and a reproduction of his car out front. The promotional extra mile no one gets to appreciate?
The folks running Cinetopia in Overland Park are pissed they didn't get The Avengers: Age of Ultron. But this week they're getting Mad Max: Fury Road while the AMC Town Center 20 is not. Mad Max: Fury Road is currently boasting a 99% Tomato Meter score at Rotten Tomatoes, which is a hell of a lot better than the good, but not great 74% score the Avengers sequel was given. I've noticed some of the Mad Max shows this weekend are already sold out. The movie probably won't break opening weekend records, but it is poised to have a very strong opening.
quote: Joe RediferRight. I enjoy it when we get no complaints about things, but I'm our own worst critic. My wife sometimes says (when I am griping about something being wrong) "You're probably the only one who noticed." But that doesn't mean the thing isn't wrong.
A lot of theaters seem to thrive on the "no complaints" mentality which is always the wrong mentality to have.
quote: Mike FreseI beg to differ, at least around here. Maybe, the situation improved during the big conversion rush, but we're now a few years down the road and it's already going down the drain generally speaking. I'd even say the situation is even getting worse than during the last years of 35mm.
Now, the range of good vs. bad presentations has certainly been narrowed greatly with digital presentation.
quote: Mike FreseAt least you're not paying for the privilege and if you are or if the screens are a central part of the experience like in a sports bar, it better be right or else there simply is no excuse for messing it up.
I think to all of the tv screens out there in public (bars, restaurants, medical offices, the employee cafeteria, etc) where the signal is not formatted correctly (widescreen broadcast tv with bars at the top and bottom) and no one seems to care. So the public has a lower standard than those on this board is all I am trying to say.
quote:
Two of the country's biggest movie theater chains are under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The DOJ is looking into how both the chains -- AMC (AMC) and Regal Entertainment (RGC) -- use their clout over smaller competitors.
One potential anti-competitive practice being investigated is known as "film clearances."
Under this practice, theaters reportedly tell Hollywood film studios they won't screen certain movies if competitors located in close proximity also screen the film.
Related: Cina tops U.S. at the box office for the first time
Small, independently-owned multiplexes claim big movie powerhouses swipe business away from them by using this technique.
That was the argument used by Viva Cinemas, which filed a lawsuit against AMC in April.
Viva, which served Houston's Hispanic community, claimed that AMC broke antitrust laws by "threatening" major studios to not show films at Viva, and cutting off the flow of first-run films to the theater.
This ultimately caused Viva to go out of business, according to the complaint.
The two chains hold a lot of weight in Hollywood, with AMC operating 4,972 screens and Regal running 7,334 screens nationwide.
Both AMC and Regal revealed the investigations Monday in regulatory filings.
AMC said it did not believe that the company violated any federal antitrust laws and that it is cooperating with authorities. Regal echoed the same sentiment in its filing.
Both AMC Theaters and Regal Entertainment did not respond with further comment.
The Department of Justice also declined to comment.
quote:(Let me add GROSS hot-spots of the ill-conceived combination of too large screen sizes, short projection throws, flat, underlit silver screens).
- Omnipresent focus issues
- Convergence so far off, the picture starts to look like anaglyph 3D, but glasses won't fix this crap.
- Flat content presented in scope
- Scope content presented in flat
- Stuck pixels or even pixel clusters in or near the center of the image
- Trailers dubbed in the wrong language
- Trailers containing subtitles in the wrong language
- Defective pre-show content that nobody cares to remove from the playlist
- Features with subtitles in the wrong language
- Advertisements and other pre-show content run in the wrong color space
And don't get me started about masking, or rather the lack of it... I could go on with this list for a while.