And you know, I don't think the studios care. It seems to me that you would want your big releases shown under the best circumstances possible. But the fact of the matter is that in this market, if you own sub-par theatres, you'll still get the movies because that's the rules.

One of the letters this month came from a guy in the Hollywood / L.A. area who was responding to a side-by-side comaparison of digital vs. film. The movie they were comparing was run with alternating reels switching between digital & 35mm. He summed up his response by saying, "sure the digital presentation on the 55 foot screen showed digital artifacts, the colors were washed out in certain areas, and some of the items looked like a bad duped VHS tape, with the current state of projection and presentation in todays theatres, the average movie going public won't be able to tell the difference or just won't care".

If anyone has seen it, I be interested in your response as well. He basically said, "So what if it sucks, film does too."

"Oh you wanna open a theater across the street from me and offer better customer service? I'll show you..."

<calling Hollywood execs>

"Hi this is Mr. AMC Carmikeregalgeneral, and if you give any product to the guy across the street, we will not play your product in markets where we are the only theater."

I think the new guy should use their uncorporate hands, that are not tied, to use the best possible customer service. Sometimes the chains can tie your hands by old policy that is outdated, while a smaller chain, or a single theater, alone, has ability to change rather quickly, as well as tend to give a little more touch of personality when dealing with their customers.

I think direct competition would eliminate the inferior theaters, the theaters we don't want to go to. Granted, there will be some indys that shouldn't be open either, and also, chain doesn't equal bad in all cases, they're just under a bigger microscope.

quote:

---

Consider this scenario. Two companies have 12 screens each in a competitive market, which means that they basically split the A movies 50/50. One company's theatres are in TERRIBLE shape,

---

This sounds just like Decatur, AL, where the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 has exceptional presentation quality and the Carmike Century Cinema 8 has had poor presentation quality for years, but both theatres do about the same amount of business because they each get 50 percent of the movies. Csrmike really has no incentive to improve their presentation quality, except to avoid negative articles in the Decatur Daily when things get too bad. If both theatres could show the same movies, the Carmike would go out of business quickly. A major problem with allowing theatres to show the same movies in the same region would be that each theatre would have to have more screens. For example, Decatur has 16 screens, with (mostly) different movies. If each 8-plex could show the same movies, there would probably not be many more than 8 movies playing in Decatur at any time, so selection would not be as good for moviegoers.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Mediocrity should NOT be an excuse for more mediocrity.

IMHO, "Film Done Right" can easily deliver quality superior to any Digital Cinema system available today. Almost every "problem" layed at the door of film presentation can be traced to unreasonable cost-cutting, or not using the tools available today to maintain quality images for hundreds of showings. I would venture to say the "problem" theatres don't use film cleaners, have minimal or non-existant maintenance, and expect miracles from under-trained, unmotivated, and poorly supervised booth personnel.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

It just doesn't work this way. There was an independent a few years ago who took a larger chain to court over non-competetive practices, won big time, and used a lot of the money to improve his theatres and build more. Any independent with a brain just needs to respond to a loss of the split with threat of legal action.

There are always subtle games that are played, but never anything as obvious as what you suggest.

Although I don't know the individual situation, the problem as described in Huntsville, may occur because of something like this:

A lease entered into under certain good economic conditions demands that the new theatre must stay open even if the business to justify it isn't there. This allows the landlord certain benefits, such as leasing surrounding parcels with that guarantee of at least some traffic flow, reduced danger of a "dead" mall, insurance against damage, etc. The theatre circuit must agree to the terms to get the space and not lose it to a competitor.

If the theatre owner has other locations under the same corporate banner, he can't close that theatre when it starts losing money. This was a major problem with many of the circuits prior to the bankruptcy proceedings.

In contrast, an independent will go out of business at a negative cash flow theatre, as a fluid free market economy would normally demand.

The problem translates to the public as a circuit theatre that has no money for maintenance or even day-to-day costs. The primary incentive of the circuit is to minimize the financial bleeding. Getting a popular film brings in more cash at no added outlay, so booking goes on as normal, while all other expenses are chopped to the bone.

Incentives for improvement can also be blocked by other factors. The last year of a lease may dictate no phyical improvements. Wage limitations (often based on a theatre's performance) may dictate lesser quality managers be used at the location. There are many other possibilities.

Split booking and cash-loss theatres are really two different issues. If anything should be made illegal, it is the "must operate" clause in leases that should be banned.

If you are training projectionists, and you are using scrap previews or other stuff, then have a ball. Chances are, when you run your projectionists through an obsticle course like I do, you come equipped with a pair of scissors, club-feet, and anything else to make their day miserable...

I was in a 50-50 product quanity and quality split for awhile (except for Universal). This is where you benefit from having a good booker that can shmooze and make deals, and try to catch the other company's booker asleep at the wheel (or not paying close attention to that particular market). Let's examine the 2001 Universal allocations for this location.

My theater: The Mummy Returns; The Fast & the Furious; Jurassic Park III; K-PAX; Spy Game; A Beautiful Mind.

Competition: Head Over Heels; Josie and the Pussycats; American Pie 2; Captain Corelli's Mandolin; The Musketeer.