Classic Films Belong on the Biggest Screens

[Geoff Jones]

I saw The Fellowship of the Ring: EE last night at Harkins Northfield. The presentation was great. It seemed like they might have tuned the sound system since I was there last. I was feeling a lot more bass than in the past, and the stereo and surround separation was really noticable.

Harkins is showing the trilogy on their premium screens, and they're filling them up. They are selling more tickets to these three showings than new releases have sold on those screens over multiple days.


Alamo Drafthouse Westminster, on the other hand, continues to book its auditoriums as poorly as possible. Their largest screen (showing new releases) is frequently a ghost town while their tiny auditoriums are full (showing classics).

Whoever is in charge of booking at Alamo Westminster could teach a master class in mismanaging a theater and minimizing profits.

Here's what it looks like this afternoon:

image.png

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I saw The Fellowship of the Ring: EE last night at Harkins Northfield. The presentation was great. It seemed like they might have tuned the sound system since I was there last. I was feeling a lot more bass than in the past, and the stereo and surround separation was really noticable.

Harkins is showing the trilogy on their premium screens, and they're filling them up. They are selling more tickets to these three showings than new releases have sold on those screens over multiple days.


Alamo Drafthouse Westminster, on the other hand, continues to book its auditoriums as poorly as possible. Their largest screen (showing new releases) is frequently a ghost town while their tiny auditoriums are full (showing classics).

Whoever is in charge of booking at Alamo Westminster could teach a master class in mismanaging a theater and minimizing profits.

Here's what it looks like this afternoon:

image.png

The Regal near me is just outside of Green Hills Mall, a very, very busy mall. They seem to do the same thing there. Went to see Ferarri a couple weeks ago and there were four of us in theater 8. Yet, the parking garages and all the parking lots were full, and another 10 story garage is under construction. Had to wait for a car leaving to get a spot. So, where are all the people that drive these cars? None of them appeared to be in the theater, yet that theater has been there more than 20 years. I have no idea how chains can afford to open up just for 10 or so people. Projection there was 4k and looked great. Projectors were either Christie or Barco...couldn't see enough of the front to tell. Sound was probably 1980's EV or JBL, but was quite adaquate.

[Geoff Jones]

Harkins theaters is showing Twilight tonight for their "Tuesday Night Classics" series and it looks like an absolute blow-out. They have 31 locations total. At all but 5 of them, they have added at least one extra auditorium. At a number of locations, they are showing Twilight on 4, 5, 6, or even 10 screens.

Twilight isn't on their premium screens, because it is showing The Two Towers: EE tonight. TTT is drawing decent crowds, though not quite as big as it drew on Saturday.

This week, seven classic film showings (Each LotR film showing 2x and Twilight showing 1x tonight) are vastly out-performing all of the current release showings combined.


In cities of a certain size, there's a hell of a market for for classic films.

[Jim Cassedy]

Booking is really outside my area of expertise, but I'm sure most everyone here is aware that
most major releases come with contracts which often require them to be shown 'on the largest
screen' for a certain number of days or weeks. That's just the way the business works.

]Alamo Drafthouse Westminster, on the other hand, continues to book its auditoriums
as poorly as possible. Whoever is in charge of booking at Alamo Westminster could teach
a master class in mismanaging a theater and minimizing profits.

I've had quite a bit of experience working with Alamo, and although I can't speak officially for them
I do know enough about their operations to tell you that Westminster has nothing to do with bookings.
All bookings are handled by a marketing & film procurement team based mainly in Texas, most of
whom have never actually been to any of the theaters they book for. The local manager has little or
nothing to do or say about what film plays in which auditorium. Alamo's bean counters, who are a
somewhat parsimonious bunch, run and analyze gazoodles of numbers & spreadsheets weekly for
all their markets and believe me, those guys are not about loosing money or "minimizing profits".

. . and also remember, Alamo is also in the food & beverage business. They make a lot of profit off
of food & alcohol sales. I'm sure that sometimes an auditorium might be picked on what type of
crowd it attracts and the potential for F&B profits. A small crowd that spends a lot on food & drinks in
in a large auditorium that's barely ½ full, is going to be more profitable than a sold out crowd in a
smaller auditorium that spends frugally. Look, emotionally, I'm on your side. I'm not defending Alamo's,
or any particular theaters auditorium booking policies But remember theater operations fall under what
is broadly known as 'show buisness" . . not 'show art' or 'show fun' but show business. And trust me,
Alamo is pretty good at managing their business and spending (or not spending) on things they
consider unnecessary. (Just ask any of the dozens of projection staff people around the country
whose jobs were eliminated in the past 6 months)

[Geoff Jones]

...everyone here is aware that most major releases come with contracts which often require them to be shown 'on the largest screen' for a certain number of days or weeks.

Everyone here loves to say this, but the data has shown again and again that either it simply isn't true or it simply doesn't matter.

Time after time, multiple major releases share premium screens, sometimes with other major releases (from different studios no less), sometimes with other types of showings. Just recently, Mean Girls was on the premium screens in the afternoon and The Beekeeper was on the same screens in the evening.

. . and also remember, Alamo is also in the food & beverage business. They make a lot of profit off of food & alcohol sales. I'm sure that sometimes an auditorium might be picked on what type of crowd it attracts and the potential for F&B profits. A small crowd that spends a lot on food & drinks in in a large auditorium that's barely ½ full, is going to be more profitable than a sold out crowd in a smaller auditorium that spends frugally.

I don't understand this.

If 8 people are sitting in a 250-seat auditorium watching a new release, are they going to spend more on food and drink than if they were sitting in a small auditorium watching that same new release? No. Are those 8 people they going to skip the movie altogether because that one particular showing wasn't on the premium screen? Highly doubtful, but if so, they have plenty of other (premium) showtimes to pick from.

If a theater complex has 1000 seats spread across multiple auditoriums, how is it not in their best interest to fill as many of those seats as possible? The more people they bring into the building, the more chances they have to sell food and drink.

If 8 people are in a 250-seat auditorium watching a new release and 72 people are in an 80-seat auditorium watching a classic, you've got only 80 chances to sell food or drink. You have limited your ability to sell tickets to the classic because A) there weren't any good seats left; and B) some moviegoers said "fuck it, why should I pay to watch that movie on a small screen when I can already do that at home?"


Something strange is definlitely going on at Alamo Westminster. It makes no sense. Alamo frequently books classics on their premium screens at other locations (which is further proof that the "release contract" business is nonsense). Northern Virginia, San Francisco, and occassionally even the Sloans Lake location in Denver all show classics on their largest screens. And, just like at Westminster, they fill them up. The difference is that in Westminster, they are capping their ability to fill them up at ~80 seats instead of 200 or 300.

Maybe there's some funny accounting going on, like WB cancelling Batgirl and Coyote vs Acme for the tax write-off. Maybe they have some sort of beef with Westminster. I can't explain it. But they are definitely leaving money on the table.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Geoff... The advantage of using a big time booker is that he can often move a slow going print you are stuck with for 4 or 6 weeks to another customers screen, so it can play out. Then get you something that might do better on your own screen. And I say sometimes... not always. Some distributers won't budge, but they know from experience which ones will and won't...

[Geoff Jones]

Mark, I don't understand how that explains the things I'm confused about.

Is it likely that Alamo uses a big time booker for its locations in other states (and its 2 other Denver locations) and uses a small-time booker for Westminster?



As for Harkins, since LotR did so well on their premium screens last weekend, they are bringing it back next weekend.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Geoff, No idea how many screens Alamo has. But assuming they employ their own Booker, he can book all the locations you mentioned, so could an independent Booker. My experience is that theater chains need their own once they pass the 100 screen count. Mainly because it's less costly than using an outside Booker at $40 to $60 a screen per month. The largest chain I serviced out west had 118 screens in four States. They did their own booking... Hopefully this helps.

[Geoff Jones]

Mark, I appreciate you sharing that information, but it doesn't really clarify things for me.

It doesn't shed any light on why one location would be booked so differently from the chain's other locations.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Lots of reasons for that, a few that come to mind are... All screens at a given location may be committed to other films. That sort of content never did well at location d or g, limited number of bookings available, those locations only do move overs, etc.

[Geoff Jones]

Any of those things would make sense, but none of them appear to be true.

If their classics showings did poorly, it would make sense for them to remain in the small auditoriums. But that isn't true.

If their new releases kept the large screen filled, it would make sense for classics to remain in the small auditorium. But that isn't true.

If they weren't showing classics at all because their screens were committed to other films, it would makes sense that they wouldn't show classics at all. But that isn't true.

If they were only showing films moved over from other locations*, it would make sense that they wouldn't show classics at all. But that isn't true.


The fact of the matter is that this location frequently shows classic films to "sold-out" crowds on tiny screens in small auditoriums while their 250-seat auditorium (with a 60-foot-wide screen) hosts crowds in the single digits or teens.

Over and over again.



*(I assume that I'm understanding the definition of a move-over correctly. If not, please educate me.)

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Often a contract states a film may not be moved to a smaller auditorium before it has spent x number of weeks in an auditorium with say at least 200 or more seats. You also have to understand that distribution is notorious for making up requirements as they go along. If you don't adhere to the contract and they find out, then they can cut you off from all their films. I did work for a chain in the Midwest that got cut off from MGM back in the mid 80's. How much flexibility s chain has also has a lot to do with how many screens they have. The large chains can dictate to distribution what they want to do to a greater extent than smaller chains and so on. This is why independents that hire a Booker which books at least hundreds of screens is an advantage to the independent theater owner. He looks at his customers as though they are his chain of theaters. Thus he can offer similar flexibility as a large chain gets.

As far as classics, often they come to theaters via a second party distributer. And a location may have to sign a contract with that second party to show x number of classics per year. Cinemark had a thing like that going with some second party company back about 2015. I remember seeing Mad Mad World at one of their sites. There were previews put together by that second party distributer of future classics that would play the same location.

And personally, it would be nearly impossible to write a definitive book about booking movies... Mainly because it's all constantly changing... I can only relate past experiences on here that customers have told me about over the years. I guarantee you in 6 months, things will be different again.

[Geoff Jones]

I did work for a chain in the Midwest that got cut off from MGM back in the mid 80's.

What part of the contract did they fail to adhere to? Did they move an MGM film into the "wrong" auditorium? Or was it something more egregeious, like cancelling showings altogther?

How long were they excluded from playing MGM titles?

Are there examples of chains that have been cut off by studios more recently (in the past decade)?

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Geoff... They were, and still are a 2nd run site, and in the 80's and early 90's ran just about every 70mm made!. Back To The Future ran 2nd run for a month to nearly 10k people! They booked a 70mm Spaceballs for their flagship movie palace theater of about 900 seats. The first week was dismal and they wanted to move the print to another near by theater they had of about 250 seats. Anyway, they called distribution to see if that was ok. Well, the guy at distribution practically came through the other end of the phone... he was pissed, and he said no. You are obligated to run the 70mm for two more weeks at your flagship theater. Especially because we flew that print in special for you. Then he said, if you don't stick to the contract, we'll cut you off. Anyway, MGM back in 1987 didn't have any big pictures on the horizon, so they booked another movie and dumped Spaceballs anyway. Then MGM lived up to their promise and cut them off. Last time I ran into the owner and his wife at Cinemacon, back about 2003 I asked if they were still cut off and he replied that it didn't really matter because they did not have hardly anything worth running.

[Mike Blakesley]

Are there examples of chains that have been cut off by studios more recently (in the past decade)?

Not in the past decade, but we got cut off once. We were showing "Movie A" for a two-week booking, but week two did quite well, so they demanded we keep it a third week. We already had "Movie B" booked for that week, so we just played both titles. The studio owner of Movie A found out about it (apparently by calling the theater -- this was before we had a website) and raised holy hell. Because it was Monday before they found out, they allowed us to play Movie A out for the week, but after that we were cut off. And, this particular studio just happened to be going into a run of several big hits in a row.

The whole thing was stupid, because by cutting us off, they denied themselves thousands of dollars in film rent from us. But they were unmovable.

Our booker felt horrible about it, because he was the one who had suggested that we do it, but he didn't think they would find out, I guess. Or he didn't think they would mind, since the two movies had decidedly different audience demographics.

Finally after six months, we were let back into service. The whole ordeal probably cost us at least $15,000 or $20,000 or more in ticket sales because we missed five movies that were big hits. We were able to play a couple of them once we got back on, but of course the crowds weren't there.

Just as bad as the financial loss was the embarrassment of not playing these HUGE hit movies. We had to sit there with also-ran titles while everyone in town was asking us why these big hits weren't playing. I was always upfront with people and told them exactly what had happened, because I didn't want rumors to start about us not paying our film bills or something.

So, the bottom line is you don't screw around. If there are terms you stick to them. We don't really stack movies anymore since nobody likes to go to late shows, but if we do do it, we ALWAYS have full knowledge and permission of both studios involved.

My guess is when theater chains move films off of their largest screens it's with permission of the studio. Contracts have all kinds of stipulations of minimum play-times and all, but it only takes a letter (or an email, even) from the studio to change them.

Do shenanigans go on with smaller companies? I'm sure they do, but they could be playing with fire. There was a neighboring theater near here (now closed) where they were playing one of the Star Wars films during a reissue. They decided to stack it with another film without permission. Fox found out about it and took them off service for a whole year.

I do think the studios are more liberal these days with regard to how many days you are open. When we first started playing movies on the break, there were sometimes terms that said they had to play for seven days a week, but there are lots of small places now that get movies on the break but are only open two or three nights a week.

The other thing is, these big chains carry a lot more "weight" than a small player does -- a studio would probably never take a large chain off service for going against terms. They might apply a penalty or something, but more likely they just exchange "dammit, you promised not to do that" emails and the event ends.