posted 10-18-2014 02:10 PM                    

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?”

---

posted 10-18-2014 05:21 PM                    

quote: Andrew Thomas

---

Competition would be to allow each theater to play the product and let consumers choose which experience they prefer.

---

posted 10-18-2014 09:19 PM                    

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

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?

---