Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spider-Man: Homecoming

This is topic Spider-Man: Homecoming - no clearance 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=003042

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 07-05-2017, 05:35 PM:

Looks like Sony is joining Fox, Universal, Paramount & Lionsgate and not granting exhibition clearance for Spider-Man: Homecoming. In the Seattle area it will be playing in several competing locations across the street with each other. Is this a one-off or will it now be the norm for Sony?

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-05-2017, 08:56 PM:

This is good news!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2017, 12:56 AM:

It's really difficult for me to be sympathetic toward theaters wanting geographic area exclusives on running certain movies. I personally lived through a really shitty theater in my town getting a lot of high profile releases exclusively that would have been far better playing at the much better, newer theater a mile west on Old Cache Road. At that time the then-new Carmike 8 theater was the only build in Oklahoma that had more than 1 THX screen under the same roof. When they did get a high profile movie (like Independence Day or Titanic) they sold out shows like crazy. If the same big style movies played at the old UA theater it was tempting just to wait for the video rental.

Day and date bookings that put movie theaters head to head, competing on the same movie, should force the weaker theaters to improve their game. OTOH, playing Devil's Advocate, lots of people are mindless cattle always looking for the cheapest price. So a slum theater could play the game of under-cutting a newer, technologically better theater in terms of price.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-06-2017, 02:59 AM:

I am wondering if the change isn't due to the reduced seating capacities at cinemas which have converted to recliners. One theater in town just converted, another has announced they will install recliners this fall...
This may be a booking fluke (I hope not) but it appears my theater and the competitor across the highway are both getting Dunkirk, from Warner Bros.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-06-2017, 05:44 AM:

"Times, they are a changing"

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-06-2017, 07:50 AM:

I vaguely remember that the justice department's anti-trust unit was looking into clearances a few years ago. Now that the cost and logistics of 35mm is gone, I doubt that the studios can justify this practice any longer. I suspect that the studios are just taking pro-active action to head off any future issues.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-06-2017, 08:39 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
OTOH, playing Devil's Advocate, lots of people are mindless cattle always looking for the cheapest price.

Not necessarily. There are many factors that potential customers use to determine whether to see a movie at a theater or at home, and if the former, what theater (if they have a practical choice). The ticket price is one of them, but not the only one.

There are three within a five-mile radius of me. One is an absolute rule-out, because it's in a gang-infested, unsafe neighborhood in San Bernardino. Of the other two, one (Harkins) is only around a year old and is a vastly superior moviegoing experience to the other - leather recliners, smart decor, nice air conditioning, and pretty good pix and sound. The main problem is that it is absolutely impossible to park anywhere near it for a show starting after around 5pm. You're looking at a 15-20 minute walk to and from the car. Also, they have a knack of scheduling showtimes so that either you can't quite get back from work in time for the movie, or you have to stay out so late that you're either paying a babysitter or really imposing on relatives.

The other (Krikorian) is more down at heel, hasn't had much money spent on maintaining it since it went up in - I would guess - the late '80s or early '90s - and seating comfort, projection and sound are all below average. The HVAC is such that you feel you're in a scene from Lawrence of Arabia in the summer, and Scott of the Antarctic in the winter. However, it's very easy to get to, it's almost always possible to park within 50 yards of the entrance, it has shows starting at around the perfect 6pm slot, and it usually has a more diverse range of movies on offer, including the odd documentary and arthouse title. I'm guessing that their location and decades of experience of programming and scheduling to the local audience's taste has enabled them to get away without having the latest and greatest in infrastructure, to a certain extent.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-06-2017, 11:35 AM:

If only they would have done this 30 years ago. I understand Bobby's concern on pricing but I don't think that any theatre could undercut enough to make somebody choose a shithole with the exception of movies for little kids.

Back in the 90's I worked at two General Cinema locations that had to split product. In both cases, we had the far nicer theatres (by 90's pre-stadium standards) with much better customer service. In both cases, the customers vocally expressed their preference for our locations and were disappointed when the competitor got a movie they wanted to see.

Had we been allowed to play day and date, either the competing location would have closed or they would have had to significantly upped their game. If it was the latter, we probably both would have done more business as the competition would have led to better experiences at both locations and gotten more people to choose going to a theatre over Blockbuster Video.

Just look at the theme park competition between Disney and Universal in Orlando. They both keep improving and combined attendance keeps rising.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2017, 11:53 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Not necessarily. There are many factors that potential customers use to determine whether to see a movie at a theater or at home, and if the former, what theater (if they have a practical choice). The ticket price is one of them, but not the only one.

Yes, in larger cities parking distance (and parking cost) as well as overall quality and safety of the neighborhood can be deciding factors on visiting a certain cinema. In more modest sized cites and towns like mine those factors aren't quite as serious an issue, especially the parking. People definitely pay attention to ticket price.

I can't stand the theater at our local mall, but I know people who only go there because standard ticket prices are around $3 to $4 cheaper. For instance, tonight the "New Vision" Central Mall 12 theater is charging $10.34 per ticket for Spiderman: Homecoming in RealD and $7.07 for 2D. At the AMC Patriot 13 they're wanting $19.39 for IMAX 3D, $16.12 for IMAX 2D, $15.03 for RealD and $11.76 for regular 2D. That's a pretty huge price difference. AMC's cheapest option is $1.42 more expensive than the mall theater's best option. By the way, since AMC took over the Patriot 13 they've hiked ticket prices significantly. IMAX 3D used to be around $17.50, which is already pretty damned expensive.

quote: James Westbrook
I am wondering if the change isn't due to the reduced seating capacities at cinemas which have converted to recliners. One theater in town just converted, another has announced they will install recliners this fall...
This may be a booking fluke (I hope not) but it appears my theater and the competitor across the highway are both getting Dunkirk, from Warner Bros.

I don't think enough theaters have switched over to recliner seating for the reduced capacity to affect ticket sales in a big way. As more theaters convert to it and other new theaters are built with recliners from the outset it may become more of a factor. On the other hand, theaters with recliners tend to charge higher than average ticket prices, which would make up for some of that lost seating capacity.

My own theory why a movie like Spiderman: Homecoming is not granting clearances: the opening weekend gross number.

Like Dennis said, "times, they are a changing." Yeah, we're living in freaking ADHD times.

The movie industry now puts all the importance on racking up a giant opening weekend dollar figure. The entertainment media almost never reports a final box office gross figure for a movie anymore. If they mention the final gross it's only said as a passing comment in some story about an actor from that movie getting busted for drug possession or some other nonsense. And they almost always cite the global box office figure, not the North American tally we were used to hearing in the 1980's. As a straight story, the final box office gross of a movie now ranks in the "who gives a shit" category. Three or four months later the media doesn't even remember that movie being released. Because of this modern day syndrome of ADHD the movie studios are willing to game the system any way they can to push opening weekend numbers higher. Doing away with clearances would help pad those numbers.

The downside of heavily front-loading a movie release with as many screens as possible: customer traffic for that movie opens in a burst and then dies off rapidly. Lately the entertainment media has been reporting 2nd weekend percentage drops. It's always fun to hype up something and then tear it down.

I remember the newspaper ads back when I was a kid. It was common to see theater ads with blurbs for movies like "in it's incredible 20th week." Movies with legs are a thing of the past.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-06-2017, 12:21 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If they mention the final gross it's only said as a passing comment in some story about an actor from that movie getting busted for drug possession or some other nonsense

They mention the final gross one other time: When they're comparing a sequel to its predecessors. "Spider-Man 23 only grossed $80 million on its opening weekend, which is a far cry from the $92 million brought in by Spider-Man 22 three years ago."

The media is expert at taking what looks like a success and spinning it into a failure. Then people see the new movie as a "flop" and that accelerates the idea that the movie is a "rental" and not something they want to see in a theater.

When you think about it, between stories like that and bad reviews, the entertainment media probably hurts more grosses than it helps.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2017, 12:43 PM:

I'm certain the movie studios are pushing the media people to hype opening weekend as much as possible. It's the get on the bandwagon marketing ploy. Don't wait for traffic to calm down before seeing the movie, you must be one of the cool people who saw the show opening weekend! Don't be left out!

I think this motivation to get as much of a movie's earnings into the studio's til as fast as possible is all about playing accounting games with cash flow figures. It sure doesn't help movie theaters at all.

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 07-06-2017, 12:56 PM:

I supposed there should some concern that without clearances for a film like this a lot more screens will get hogged, given the boot to other films. Some of which could be smaller independent films. So less choice for the consumer and less opportunity for the smaller fish.

Another trend I've seen in North Seattle where there is a newer stadium Regal 14-plex with LieMax vs. an older sloped 6 screen AMC is that the might both play the same big release for the first couple of weeks and then the AMC will completely dump it yet keep showing some art film or older hollywood release that they have clearance on. Must be feeling the pain of dilution if their "superior" neighbor is playing the same title.

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 07-06-2017, 01:16 PM:

Speaking of small fish I am pushing that this no clearances will come to Canada. Here - in the GTA CP has a monopoly on all product and effectively on all screens. I am stuck playing move over and whatever art pictures I can get. Yes art pictures - for the most part stuff that brings in a nasty ass crowd that buys nothing and constantly complains about price and every other thing that they can find.
Being told by your customers that you play the better films that the 'big guys' do not - it is time to get a new audience.
Exhibition is a ruthless business and not a place for nostalgia and illusions of art. All art is propaganda so you might as well make good bar sales.
I have started to play more action and hollywood films - the crowd comes later and I play late 10ish shows - they are pleasant and only want to have fun. Fun that is what a movie theatre is about - not a bunch of entitled imbeciles asking for cups of water and telling you that the toilet paper is running low in the women's shitter.
Seriously does anyone want that gang of bad karma art picture audience of the embalmed?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-06-2017, 05:18 PM:

quote: Alexandre Pereira
Seriously does anyone want that gang of bad karma art picture audience of the embalmed?

Maybe you should take a closer look at your current customer base before you declare them all to be just entitled cheapskates.

One of the local art houses made a killing once they started to realize their clientele isn't typical the one which likes to eat popcorn, nachos and candy bars and neither do they fancy a coke in a cardboard cup. They also generally don't like the sound of popcorn munching hordes gone wild, silence is a thing.

What they do like though, is to drink expensive wines. They also like to spend a lot of money on rather expensive and more exclusive snacks and menu items.

So, once they moved into a new building, they made sure to open a rather large and stylish bar and restaurant area and haven't looked back ever since.

Clearances never were a thing in Europe, even not in the 35mm era. I guess they never passed the smell test. Yeah, there was the occasional print shortage.

So, even the local art house can play any given blockbusting mega-tent-pole release day and date if they want and as a matter of fact, they sometimes do, but only if it somehow fits into their program. Why would you target a crowd that doesn't fit you? No need to cater to popcorn munching hordes if you don't even have it on the menu...

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-06-2017, 05:50 PM:

quote: Alexandre Pereira
Exhibition is a ruthless business and not a place for nostalgia and illusions of art.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder about the atmosphere you have at your theatre, if this and "entitled imbeciles" are the way that you view your business and your customers.

People come to a theatre to have a good time and a night (or afternoon) out. It's a place to take a girl on a date, get the kids out of the house for the afternoon, for Grandpa and Grandma to enjoy a shared experience with little Johnny and Sally, and to get out of the house and get away from the kids for a night.

I sincerely believe that a movie theatre has a special kind of a magical atmosphere that isn't found anywhere else. I've owned and operated my theatre for a few years now and haven't changed my mind about that yet; if I ever do it might be time for me to retire or find something else to do.

"Find something you love to do and you’ll never have to work a day in your life."

Take an objective as possible look at your operation. Are you providing a happy and fun place and that magical atmosphere for your customers to enjoy when they come to a movie at your theatre? The movie title might be the overt reason that people walk in the door once, but the atmosphere is the reason why they walk in the door a second time.

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 07-06-2017, 07:07 PM:

"What they do like though, is to drink expensive wines. They also like to spend a lot of money on rather expensive and more exclusive snacks and menu items."

This may work in Europe - but not here. You are dealing with a very base crowd in the GTA when it comes to 'art pictures'. It is not a problem limited to the Kingsway Theatre - it is a problem throughout the locations that are saddle with clearance issues. I have alcohol sales here and a full menu - but that makes NO difference. It is not that they do not want popcorn - they just do not want anything. It is simply NOT enough to live off of ticket sales. Even if the percentage of rent is 35% - even if you are busy. RPP is everything and that can only be achieved by running first run in Toronto - whether blockbuster films or middle of the road dramas - but not art films.

People come to a theatre to have a good time and a night (or afternoon) out. It's a place to take a girl on a date, get the kids out of the house for the afternoon, for Grandpa and Grandma to enjoy a shared experience with little Johnny and Sally, and to get out of the house and get away from the kids for a night.

I sincerely believe that a movie theatre has a special kind of a magical atmosphere that isn't found anywhere else. I've owned and operated my theatre for a few years now and haven't changed my mind about that yet; if I ever do it might be time for me to retire or find something else to do.

"Find something you love to do and you’ll never have to work a day in your life."

"Take an objective as possible look at your operation. Are you providing a happy and fun place and that magical atmosphere for your customers to enjoy when they come to a movie at your theatre? The movie title might be the overt reason that people walk in the door once, but the atmosphere is the reason why they walk in the door a second time."

YES YES and more YES - however, that is not what a large part of the art house crowd wants. That is what SHOWGOERS of all ages want - fun and good times.
Art films bring in a morose clientele that are the antithesis of what the movie crowd should be. I am not talking about the revival showgoers - similar to the New Beverley Cinema (comes to mind). I have played revival 35mm and DCP shows and the people who come really appreciate the experience.
The art house crowd are imbeciles, cheapskates and rude entitled idiots - but worse is that they do not BUY. All judgements are reserved based on the RPP - and at the end of the day it is all that matters.

Posted by Adam T. Holland (Member # 10095) on 07-06-2017, 08:44 PM:

As a single screen with my nearest competitor being a Cinemark 60 miles in Monroe, La. I for one think this is a great move, if they will all just get on board. Walt Disney has become a nightmare to work with over the past two years requiring us to wait longer and requiring us to keep a film for two weeks while still charging 60% plus for film rental.

In a small community with a population of less than 2,000 in the city and just 20,000 in the Parish two weeks is to long to keep a film. Its time they realize that we all are equal players in the game and give us all the opportunity to have equal playing time.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-06-2017, 10:13 PM:

We aren't equal players, though, in the way that matters to the movie companies. There isn't a chance in the world that my theatre could ever sell the same number of tickets as a theatre in a large city. While disappointing in that way, I can also understand why the large theatres get the most attention from the movie companies.

When it comes to getting movies on the break, the best explanation that I've seen for them not wanting to give it to "everybody" is that the smaller theatres like mine will drag down the per-screen average for the first two weeks of release, and that number is very important when negotiating downstream deals like television and video rights. I don't know if that's the actual reason or not, but it sounds like it could be.

As for Disney, I just don't play many Disney movies any more. The last one that I played was Beauty and the Beast and I don't know what I'll play next. I haven't played any of the new Star Wars movies and nobody around here really seemed to notice.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-06-2017, 10:18 PM:

quote: Adam T. Holland
In a small community with a population of less than 2,000 in the city and just 20,000 in the Parish two weeks is to long to keep a film.

I don't know about that...we're in town of 1700, a county of 9500 and the nearest "city" has about 9000 people and has a theater of its own. We play 12 to 15 movies a year on the break, most for 2 weeks but we've done a handful for 3, and the Star Wars movies have been 4 weeks. I would rather have a fairly dead 4th week than wait six weeks after the break and wind up with 1/3 or less of the crowd we'd have gotten on the break, and still pay the high percentage for it.

The trick is to educate your crowd that it's not "all about the opening weekend." For multi-week movies, we usually put the opening-closing dates on our marquee. This tends to even out the crowds. I've found at least half of the audience could give a crap about the opening weekend...and if you use your marquee to let them know the movie will be around a while, you'll still be getting decent crowds at the end of week 2 or 3. At least, it works for us.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-07-2017, 04:04 AM:

quote: Alexandre Pereira
This may work in Europe - but not here. You are dealing with a very base crowd in the GTA when it comes to 'art pictures'. It is not a problem limited to the Kingsway Theatre - it is a problem throughout the locations that are saddle with clearance issues. I have alcohol sales here and a full menu - but that makes NO difference. It is not that they do not want popcorn - they just do not want anything. It is simply NOT enough to live off of ticket sales. Even if the percentage of rent is 35% - even if you are busy. RPP is everything and that can only be achieved by running first run in Toronto - whether blockbuster films or middle of the road dramas - but not art films.

I'm not implying your solution is to try to feed your existing customer base expensive wine or something more exclusive than pizzas, hot dogs or grilled cheese sandwiches.

What I was trying to say is: You do have an audience, which is already worth something. It is often harder than people think to build an audience, especially in a competitive market. So, instead of ditching your existing audience and target one that everybody else already targets, it might be a worthwhile exercise to try to figure out how to make more money from your existing customer base. And it might not be imported wine, specialty beers or fancy-pants menu items, but it might be something totally else. Whatever this "else" is, is most likely something you can better judge than me.

quote: Frank Cox
When it comes to getting movies on the break, the best explanation that I've seen for them not wanting to give it to "everybody" is that the smaller theatres like mine will drag down the per-screen average for the first two weeks of release, and that number is very important when negotiating downstream deals like television and video rights. I don't know if that's the actual reason or not, but it sounds like it could be.

I'm pretty sure those averages aren't worth anything right now. For example Disney being such a major force in the industry, they can set the demands even without the numbers backing them up.

I think the reasons behind this selective distribution mechanism are rooted in the fact that most of those Hollywood studios are absolute control freaks. I've seen this personally, when I was part of rights negotiations for on-line distribution quite some years ago. They really want to dictate everything what happens to their content, if it would be possible even when it should expire in your head.

They also seem to think that some kind of exclusivity increases interest in their product. It's essentially the Apple way of doing business: See this new shiny toy we have for you? Want to have it? Well, get in line...

Besides that, there's the more Mafiaesque part of the business, where they simply divide the market among competing exhibitors. They will never publicly acknowledge the reasons why this happened, other than that it's "better" for all parties involved.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 07-07-2017, 10:05 AM:

I get what you're saying Alexandre. Our little dog and pony show of a drive-in (near Ottawa) had cheap pricing when we took it over, and though they certainly weren't an "arthouse" crowd, they were CHEAPSKATES. In higher numbers than I'd ever served in other business. And they are the complainers. I like to often say (to my wife or friends), "We're raising prices to serve you better." Having no choice, we did raise prices, cleaned the place up, got a far better clientele of families (who can't believe how CHEAP this place is as they load up on crap) who are legitimately stoked on our sometimes crappy (they're excited on Facebook about our bonus Transformers to go with Despicable Me this week) movies. So I hear you. FUN people like to have fun. They're the ones that go to the ballgame and don't bitch about the price of hot dogs, they're there to watch a game and eat a hot dog. I think Hollywood misses the boat with not using small indoors as a way of making people love movies with their 2-week runs and non-splitting of screens. It wouldn't touch Cineplex's bottom line if you played the latest kids Christmas movie. Those are the "fun" people. Then the "fun" parents might say, hey, nice little theatre down the block, playing some interesting artsy film AND we can have a beer or wine and pretty soon it's "their" place. I don't envy anyone trying to please the "high class cheapskate", they're never satisfied. We got the other cheapskates back. We proved we weren't going to take their crap, but we also backed it up by being clean, efficient purveyors of popcorn & popcorn accessories (to paraphrase Hank Hill). They saw the "fun" people taking over and didn't want to be left out! I hope Hollywood at some point gets this.

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 07-07-2017, 12:15 PM:

Hi Dave...you are dead on! Here in Toronto the Festival Chain ran for years with art, second run and a lessening number of older titles. They were called repertory in the most derogatory way = cheap. The Festival chain was far from perfect but they kept many older theatres including the Kingsway open.
But by keeping prices cheap and catering to the so called art crowd they went tits up in 2006. Even then the crowd blamed the family that owned some of the theatres for closing them,
It was appalling the mob mentality and entitlement of nit wits who rarely went to the show anyway and had no problem paying the higher prices at cineplex.
When I reopened in 2009 I received much the same attitude. I subsequently raised the prices to match the CP base price. Still my concession, alcohol and food pricing are well below CP. Yet the tards still complain. However, the action and hollywood crowd love the place and never complain.
The art crowd is not an audience but a plague. CP has abandoned the art market for a reason - and only plays many of these films to fill screens. The Cumberland was closed a few years back - that was a hotbed of art pictures for cp. The Lightbox plays all so called art - but they do not count because they are subsidized - both by the government and the distributors that give that outfit exclusive films.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2017, 01:34 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
I just don't play many Disney movies any more. The last one that I played was Beauty and the Beast and I don't know what I'll play next. I haven't played any of the new Star Wars movies and nobody around here really seemed to notice.

Uhh, you didn't play Guardians of the Galaxy 2? Pirates? You didn't play the last two STAR WARS movies?! These were all top 5 of the year material for us. We haven't played Cars 3 yet but it's coming up next week.

I guarantee you your crowd notices....they're going to those movies elsewhere.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-07-2017, 02:41 PM:

Those who want to see those movies are indeed going elsewhere to see them. But since I can't play them until six or eight weeks after their release (or longer) there remains little point in playing them at that point. The fans will have gone elsewhere to see it long before then, and the few that are left will come to see something else that I'm playing that's newer, even if it's a less "important movie". If I'm going to be playing something for a moderate crowd I can play something that won't cost me 65%.

I did have people ask when I will be playing the first Disney Star Wars movie right around its release date. At the time my answer was, "Probably at some point but I don't know when yet." Without exception their response was, "Well, I've already seen it myself and..."

I play most movies on their third week, sometimes the second week and maybe once or twice a year I play something for the first week.

I do still play occasional Disney movies, but it depends on what else I could get that week.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2017, 02:50 PM:

The difference is in the concession sales though. I'd much rather pay 64% for the movie and get big concession buying crowds, than pay 40% and get a quarter (or less) of the crowd and hence, a quarter of the concessions.

Four or five weeks in is just too close to the video release for these hyped up blockbusters, considering that Amazon and the rest start promoting the video about two minutes after the movie hits the theaters.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-07-2017, 03:38 PM:

I've noticed that two theaters in the same area are now playing the same movies- most areas in Sacramento have both a Century and a UA theater, and movies would usually play at one or the other but now they're showing up at both. I don't really like this because it further reduces the overall selection of movies you can see and how long they play; it's already bad when something plays on 3 screens at one theater and no shows even come close to selling out.

I see prices are now all over the map too instead of in increments that allow for just keeping quarters in the box office for change, that must REALLY suck.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 07-08-2017, 10:38 AM:

We started out at our drive-in with the rather odd arrangement whereby we bought the place from a guy who managed the local indoor which was owned by our booker (who actually kind of wanted to buy the drive-in but didn't know it was for sale). The indoor was basically dying and falling apart but they were keeping it open to pay taxes, occasionally asking me if I wanted it. They had two screens and opened everything on the break, and we would play everything 3rd or 4th week at 35% and occasionally break the odd one. They'd done that for years and we got along fine. When they closed, we immediately went to first-run at 60-50 mostly (and gasp! even the odd 65-55 over the years). I gotta say, it was never the big shocker I expected to the numbers. We're so weather dependent as an outdoor, and some things changed like being locked into 2 weeks (and as a single, missing every-other release during the summer), but I gotta say overall, sunny evening to sunny evening, we draw more this way. We certainly sell more concessions, and karma seems to look after us sometimes when we do lose our minds and take a 65-55% deal, it always seems to rain the first weekend and the bigger crowd shows up second week! Really looking forward to Screen 2, coming in the spring if we can get this construction going....