Kicking the small town theater's

[Nathan McLaughlin]

Any small town theater's opening on the break ( 6/11 ) with Peter Rabbit 2?
We were just told by our booker no twins will get it on the break !
We've been told this on big block busters many times but never on a kid friendly show.
Nate

[James Wyrembelski]

Same here. Just got a call today as well. We had planned on Spirit anyways but always disappointed to hear "No" regardless. Said even some larger places (4+ screens) were getting a no as well.

Really needing the family films right now too.....

[Mike Blakesley]

I've heard the same.

It drives me bonkers how they now have next-to-nothing print costs (compared to film) and yet want insane playtimes on movies that will be OUT ON HOME VIDEO IN RECORD TIME!

It's the same as saying OK, we'll put it on home video but only in a certain number of houses in big cities --- if you live in a small town, you're outta luck..

It's insane.

[Mark Strube]

Twin theater here... I opted for "In the Heights" to open on the week of 6/11. Despite being available on HBO Max, we have a ton of pre-sales. Our second screen will be in week 3 of "Quiet Place II" which is kicking butt for us as well.

[Jon Dent]

We initially got the same info but our booker says they *may* open additional prints today (6/7).

We got a hard drive of "In the Heights" by mistake but I was told to keep it so I assume that's our backup plan as well.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've heard the same.

It drives me bonkers how they now have next-to-nothing print costs (compared to film) and yet want insane playtimes on movies that will be OUT ON HOME VIDEO IN RECORD TIME!

It's the same as saying OK, we'll put it on home video but only in a certain number of houses in big cities --- if you live in a small town, you're outta luck..

It's insane.

Maybe it's time the independent exhibitors in the U.S. bond together into some kind of interest group that acts as one front against the studios?

What they're doing is borderline monopolistic and doesn't fly in many other countries around the world. I'm actually pretty sure that it shouldn't fly in the U.S. either, as their practices are clearly destructive to a large part of the market, but nobody dares to take action.

I also fail to understand how it actually helps their own bottom-line, as common sense would dictate that you want your movie on as many screens as possible, in order for people to be able to actually see it...

[Frank Cox]

I was once told (and don't know for sure if it's true though it makes a certain amount of sense) that the movie companies don't want their movies to play in the smallest theatres right off the bat because the small theatres drag the per-screen average down. That number is used in negotiations for things like streaming and whatever other licensing the company may do with that movie into the future.

[Marcel Birgelen]

That metric must have worked wonderfully for them the last 15 months or so...

[James Wyrembelski]

I was once told (and don't know for sure if it's true though it makes a certain amount of sense) that the movie companies don't want their movies to play in the smallest theatres right off the bat because the small theatres drag the per-screen average down. That number is used in negotiations for things like streaming and whatever other licensing the company may do with that movie into the future.

That explanation always made sense to me and for the most part I buy it. Not so much anymore. Back in the day of higher print cost, limited prints, and pre streaming (and even adding streaming a couple years ago) it would make sense. Now that print costs are considerably lower and given that most companies are now using their own streaming services, or launching them, it no longer makes sense.

And to add that we're seeing shortening windows and same day VOD release I don't get why I'm still beholden to 3-4 week requirements or unable to split my screen. A lot of product is no longer an exclusive which is why I never fussed too much about that. I get the argument by some that it's an ever so slight advantage to be a single and play more than one film. However, I'm still limited greatly by showtimes alone. Larger places can dedicate auditoriums to films and play them nearly round the clock if they so wish. I can't do that with one single screen and more than one film at a time. I also understand that film companies see more than one film in an auditorium and see less potential. But with the much lower cost on the other side....isn't the risk worth it now?

I'm just wondering how we're going to fill empty one week spots with these shorter windows too. I guess they'll just be dead weeks? Perhaps I'm wrong about it all, but that's just how I feel about it.

[Jon Dent]

We ended up getting approved for a print at 9:45 Monday night. Seems more like a game when that happens.

[Mike Blakesley]

So now we probably will end up not playing Peter Rabbit 2 at all, thanks to Sony's refusal to take a two-week-locked booking. (We have F9 coming up in two weeks, and Black Widow after that, and then Pete will have gone down the video sewer.) Even though Peter will clearly run out of steam for us during the second week. And we couldn't fill in with Spirit Untamed either because Universal wanted a two-week booking on that, even though it's already out on video and isn't as strong a title as Peter. I wish I had an address where I could tell the kids and parents to send their complaints to. We tried...

[Frank Cox]

I'm playing Spirit Untamed here this week and it's pretty much a dud. I've been playing it for 1 or 2 people per night every weekday so far....

So you aren't missing much.

I'm really surprised because there hasn't been a kids show for quite a while and I expected to see a lot of kids for it. (As kids shows go, it's a pretty good little movie too.)

On the positive side I do only have it for one week and the new Conjuring movie starts on Friday so we'll see if anyone wants to see that one.

[Mike Blakesley]

It's just so kooky that these companies are falling all over themselves to get video subscribers, but yet there are movie theaters who want to play their product (and pay exhorbitant rental) and they won't let us, unless we meet their pre-determined criteria.

I don't see them turning down any video subscribers because their town isn't big enough.

It's the only industry there is where the suppliers HAVE the product (and the customers), but don't want to sell it.

[Jon Dent]

I suspect the big chains (AMC, Regal, etc) offer to pay a lot of money to studios to guarantee that only they get the big titles on break. If that money is more than they think they'll make off the small town theater circuit, then business minds take over. Makes me wonder if Sony doesn't have the most faith in the movie.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I suspect the big chains (AMC, Regal, etc) offer to pay a lot of money to studios to guarantee that only they get the big titles on break. If that money is more than they think they'll make off the small town theater circuit, then business minds take over. Makes me wonder if Sony doesn't have the most faith in the movie.

This thing you describe right here is monopolistic malpractice and there are laws to help you. The thing is, those laws don't invoke themselves though.