Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: REGAL REBELS! Chain Threatens To Reduce Trailer Play Time For Colluding Studios

This is topic REGAL REBELS! Chain Threatens To Reduce Trailer Play Time For Colluding Studios in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=007159

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-06-2011, 11:25 AM:

REGAL REBELS! Not So Fast, Film Moguls: Chain Threatens To Reduce Trailer Play Time For Colluding Quartet Of Studios

Source: deadline.com

quote:
EXCLUSIVE: I've learned that Regal Cinemas has come up with a specific plan to fight that newest scheme by Fox, Sony, Warner Bros, and Universal to keep undermining movie theaters. This is all about that colluding quartet's plan going into effect as early as this month offering some major pics for a “premium” Video on Demand service on DirecTV at a price point of $30 only 8 weeks after the films' theatrical release. When word about this inconveniently leaked out last week at CinemaCon, the recent Las Vegas convention of studios and exhibitors, theater owners publicly expressed "strong disappointment" but privately went completely batshit. Now I'm told Regal Cinemas has decided to take matters into its own hands. My intel is that the theater chain's marketing people have just begun warning the marketing teams of the colluding quartet of studios that it's not going to be business as usual from this point on. Specifically, Regal is threatening to drastically reduce the amount of play time for each of the 4 studios' movie trailers in every Regal cinema. And since this comes right before the all-important summer movie season, when balmy ticket sales usually account for 40% of the film industry's annual revenue, it's a counter-attack with some real power behind it. Because cinema owners allow millions of hours of playing time each year to trailers promoting the movies booked on their screens. Now Regal is the first of these theater owners to calculate just how much that valuable screen time is worth to the chain's bottom line and to the studios that have collapsed the release window. The same consideration will no doubt be given to the acres of wall and floor space devoted to posters and standees. As NATO’s Executive Board noted in their open letter of June 16, 2010, the length of a movie’s release window is an important economic consideration for theater owners when it comes to how widely and under what terms they book a film.

I love the way the 4 studios are shocked, shocked, that Regal would dare to challenge them on this. The studios have been looking to find revenue to replace long-plummeting DVD sales (like deals with Netflix to expand windows on the streaming service), but they keep setting up a showdown with the big exhibitor chains who already are fuming about the low box office numbers during the first quarter of this year. Then again, no one is supposed to dare expose obvious issues relating to collusion, price-fixing, and anti-trust among the Big Media companies whose major studios are supposed to be business competitors.

Some of the colluding quartet's coming movies probably won't be hurt if they're installments of well-known franchises like Fast 5 (Universal), or The Hangover, Part 2 (Warner Bros), X Men: First Class (Fox), Rise Of The Apes (Fox), or Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (Warner Bros). But new "original" movies could well be impaired by less trailer play like Green Lantern (Warner Bros), Mr. Popper's Penguins (Fox), Cowboys & Aliens (Universal), Zookeeper (Sony), and The Smurfs (Sony). It will also cost more to market them since more expensive TV ads will have to run.

Who benefits? Certainly Paramount and Disney which didn't join the quartet because of oft-stated piracy fears about early VoD which delivers a pristine, high definition, digital copy to thieves months earlier than previously available. Paramount and/or Disney have more than half a dozen summer blockbusters which could enjoy more movie trailer playing time by Regal: Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon, Super 8, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, Pirates Of The Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides, and Cars 2. Not that they need it because all appear to already have built-in audiences.

Here's my advice to Regal right now: Don't threaten. Promise!

The National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) already has bitched about how theater operators "were not consulted or informed of the substance, details or timing of this announcement" and how early-to-the-home VoD will import the problems of the home entertainment market into the theatrical market without fixing those problems. "The studios have not managed to maintain a price point in the home market and we expect that they will be unable to do so with early VoD. They risk accelerating the already intense need to maximize revenues on every screen opening weekend and driving out films that need time to develop — like many of the recent Academy Award-nominated pictures. They risk exacerbating the scourge of movie theft by delivering a pristine, high definition, digital copy to pirates months earlier than they had previously been available. Paramount has explicitly cited piracy as a reason they will not pursue early VoD. Further, [other studios] risk damaging theatrical revenues without actually delivering what the home consumer seems to want, which is flexibility, portability and a low price. These plans fundamentally alter the economic relationship between exhibitors, filmmakers and producers, and the studios taking part in this misguided venture.... In the end, the entire motion picture community will have a say in how the industry moves forward. These studios have made their decision in what they no doubt perceive to be their best interests. Theater owners will do the same."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2011, 04:42 PM:

OH SNAP! Regal is drawing the line and coming out with their big guns firing now! This will show those pesky studios! Regal means business, yo! I have never seen a move this extr3me during the entire history of the exhibition industry. All I can say is "OH MY GOD!"

Seriously, though, there's going to need to be more of a kick to the studios' nuts than this to get them to listen. You're fighting for your livelihoods, Regal, and you and AMC stand in the perfect place to send a proper message on behalf of the entire industry. I guess starting out with this message is OK, but the next message should be far more severe as in not booking the movie, period. Hurts in the short term but you win in the long term. Granted, you are public-owned and therefore all about short-term, but one can hope!

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-06-2011, 04:44 PM:

I laughed when I read this earlier on another site, because they are still going to book the movies and show them. Only thing they'll be doing is hurting themselves, if they wanted to make a point they wouldn't book the product and cut out a couple thousand screens from the studios. We all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2011, 07:38 PM:

That's a downside to having all those screens....they've gotta be filled. If enough bookers make decisions based on the VOD thing, studios will feel it in their pocketbooks, probably not enough to change their minds though.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 04-06-2011, 09:01 PM:

Oh independent film studioooooooooosssss...... Are you listening to this?

If the theatres did have a couple thousand screens going begging, what a diamond mine for you...

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-06-2011, 10:25 PM:

Pick one studio and deal them out permanently. Louis

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-07-2011, 02:02 PM:

Not running trailers is just shooting themselves in the foot. If they had any balls, they would boycott those studios releases, or at least any release that will be part of this VOD program.

Back in 1983, Universal did an experiment with the Linda Ronstadt film Pirates Of Penzance, releasing it day and date in theatres and home video. Every major and most independent theatres refused to play the film. The film tanked, and Universal did not try that stupid stunt again. Not running the trailers is like saying that you are going to give them a strong verbal lashing before you bend over and get fucked.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2011, 04:32 PM:

You are correct that theaters boycotted that film back in 1983, but here's a little more information on that:

quote: IMDB
Pirates of Penzance was shown on a Los Angeles television movies channel - SelecTV - simultaneously with its theatrical release. This was only the second time that something like this had been tried - in 1956, Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version of Shakespeare's "Richard III" had its U.S. premiere in New York City and its television premiere on NBC on the same day. Like "The Pirates of Penzance", "Richard III" was also a box office flop, but unlike the former film, "Richard III" won universal acclaim from the critics, became a film classic, and was not boycotted during its theatrical run.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-07-2011, 05:21 PM:

..and NATO will be as useless as always.

Louis has the right idea. Target one studio and tell them to bash their product-PERIOD.

This will isolate one studio and therefore will make it much easier to track the importance of theatrical release before DVD/VOD releases.

Just one question. Are distributors still charging theatres for trailers? If so, save yourself the money.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-07-2011, 05:34 PM:

If the megaplexes booked the movies on just one or two screens instead of the usual 10 screens per site, the movie might just have more staying power in theatres from week to week.

I've always felt that the collapsed window BETWEEN SHOWTIMES is doing just as much harm as the window to video...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2011, 07:20 PM:

I definitely agree with that! There is no need for ANY movie to start every 10 or 15 minutes. If you have a popular movie, make some decent times and people will fit those times into their schedules to go see it. Make bigger and better auditoriums if you want extra ticket sales. And I mean BIG. I'd rather go to a 5 or 6-plex with 6 huge auditoriums than a 24-plex with 4 kind-of-big and 20 miniscule auditoriums.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-07-2011, 08:41 PM:

I was going to write that you were both being unrealistic and that it would be too expensive to staff. I thought about it more though and if you staggered the showtimes properly you could do fewer, bigger screens on similar staffing levels as a larger multiplex. Definitely have to do reserved seating though otherwise people will join a queue and not visit the concessions stand.

My personal experience of working when we over-screen on big titles is quite positive though, as our customers didn't have to queue, they got great service and we hit all our targets on food spend.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-08-2011, 01:20 AM:

The multiple showtimes and the collapsed home-video window are symptoms of a bigger issue. Namely, movies today suck.

One of my fondest experiences was WAITING IN LINE FOR HOURS to see the reissue of "Star Wars" at Grauman's Chinese. The crowd was entertaining and the buildup to showtime was intense. Waiting was part of the excitement.

I don't mind waiting for a good movie. I probably would NOT wait in line to see most of what passes for movies nowadays.

I've always believed that the studios want the movies on so many screens so that the show never gets sold-out. Nobody gets turned away and everybody sees the movie in the first weekend -- before they can hear about how awful it was. By the time we know the movie sucks, it's too late.

So, actually, my fundamental belief is that better movies is what we need to save this industry.

Okay -- NOW you can accuse me of being "unrealistic" !

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-08-2011, 02:31 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I've always believed that the studios want the movies on so many screens so that the show never gets sold-out. Nobody gets turned away and everybody sees the movie in the first weekend -- before they can hear about how awful it was. By the time we know the movie sucks, it's too late.

That isn't a belief, it is a known fact. The other half of that equation is that the studios get the highest percentage of ticket sales in the first weekend too.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-08-2011, 09:26 PM:

Brad,

Lately the studios have been charging a flat % for the whole run. maybe 1 out of 6 or so has had the old sliding scale.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-08-2011, 10:38 PM:

Well that's interesting. How recently did that start?

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-08-2011, 11:33 PM:

Brad:

What is known as an "aggregate" fixed percentage for the entire run started about 5 or 6 years ago. It depends on the studio and the picture.

For some pics they still give you a choice of the old standard sliding scale of (for example) 70/60/50/40 vs (for example)a fixed aggegrate percentage of 56% for each of the entire four weeks. More and more the studios are going only aggregate. Based upon my experiences the aggregate actually seems to help the owners particularly if the picture is front loaded.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2011, 04:49 PM:

It's not quite that simple. In some cases the percentage is determined by the final domestic gross of the picture -- the higher it is, the higher the percentage. Disney is on this program, not sure who all else.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-09-2011, 05:01 PM:

Disney is the only one with that type of scale. It can be as low as 45% if the total BO is less than $12.5 million or as high as 62% with BO over $400m.

I like the agg better. It really is better for the exhibitor in my case.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-09-2011, 07:57 PM:

Buena Vista, CBS, Lionsgate, MGM, Overture, Sony, Warner Bros, and Weinstein all have aggregate scales based on final domestic gross.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 05-31-2011, 09:09 PM:

Darn! I've just got the timing down to the minute as to when I should arrive late in order to miss all those trailers... now they're going to mess with my time table. [Mad]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2011, 10:01 PM:

Just so you know....everybody else in the audience hates it when you arrive late. Just saying.

Take an iPod or a book or something if you don't want to watch the trailers. Or take a nap. But don't arrive late. It's rude, and you might miss the beginning of the movie you're paying to see.