Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(APM Marketplace)   Movie theaters that want to show 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' have to give Disney 65 percent of the ticket sales and hold the screens for a month, which completely screws theaters that only have several screens   ( marketplace.org) divider line
    More: Awkward, Film, Star Wars, theater owners, market share, Warner Bros., Schwartzel, Ryssdal, Erich Schwartzel  
•       •       •

1307 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Nov 2017 at 4:20 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-08 03:31:13 PM  
Here's hoping that theaters boycott the movie. Large theater chains should be telling Disney to fark off, and doing so as publicly as possible, explaining that Disney is screwing theater operators so badly that they can't afford to even capitulate to that deal.

That would be incredible - theaters, as a bloc, telling customers "we'd love to show the film, but as it would be a devastating loss for us, it's simply not economically viable to do so."
 
2017-11-08 04:24:34 PM  
The theater where I saw Star Wars ran it for well over a year, so one month shouldn't be a problem for anyone.
 
2017-11-08 04:30:08 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The theater where I saw Star Wars ran it for well over a year, so one month shouldn't be a problem for anyone.


Well it opened on 43 screens 40 years ago and will probably open on nearly 4000 screens this December so those situations are exactly the same.
 
2017-11-08 04:35:37 PM  
For The Force Awakens...
Dec 18-20   1    $247,966,675    
Dec 25-27   2    $149,202,860    
Jan 1-3        3    $90,241,673    
Jan 8-10      4    $42,353,785    
Jan 15-17    5    $26,342,117

By week five, TFA was doing about 10.6% of its week one gross.  If the split were 50/50 before, the 65% split puts $124M of the gross back in Disney's pocket.
 
2017-11-08 04:37:10 PM  
Disney wants the theaters to boycott and fail so they can roll out their proprietary first-run home streaming service.
 
2017-11-08 04:37:18 PM  

FormlessOne: That would be incredible - theaters, as a bloc, telling customers "we'd love to show the film, but as it would be a devastating loss for us, it's simply not economically viable to do so."


Yes, boo hoo. I'm sure everyone will rise up to support those poor people who've been charging $12 for a soda while plastering advertising on every square inch of their buildings, yet never seem to get around to mopping the floor every once in awhile.
 
2017-11-08 04:37:25 PM  

FormlessOne: Large theater chains should be telling Disney to fark off,



Large chains have multi-year contracts with Disney.
 
2017-11-08 04:38:56 PM  

mjbok: Wellon Dowd: The theater where I saw Star Wars ran it for well over a year, so one month shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

Well it opened on 43 screens 40 years ago and will probably open on nearly 4000 screens this December so those situations are exactly the same.


And 40 years ago I didn't have a 70" TV with a Dobly Atmos Surround system in my den.
I still don't, but that's beside the point.
 
2017-11-08 04:39:11 PM  

FormlessOne: Here's hoping that theaters boycott the movie. Large theater chains should be telling Disney to fark off, and doing so as publicly as possible, explaining that Disney is screwing theater operators so badly that they can't afford to even capitulate to that deal.

That would be incredible - theaters, as a bloc, telling customers "we'd love to show the film, but as it would be a devastating loss for us, it's simply not economically viable to do so."


Except they won't, which really sucks. 

Disney can easily say, "Fine. We won't let you show ANY of our movies. Say 'hi' to bankruptcy for us."

Disney owns such a large market share of successful movies/properties right now, it would be financial suicide for any theaters to not go a long with this. And Disney knows this and is going to exploit it.

They might as well open up their own chain of theaters, or buy out one or two of them.
 
2017-11-08 04:40:44 PM  

sirrerun: mjbok: Wellon Dowd: The theater where I saw Star Wars ran it for well over a year, so one month shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

Well it opened on 43 screens 40 years ago and will probably open on nearly 4000 screens this December so those situations are exactly the same.

And 40 years ago I didn't have a 70" TV with a Dobly Atmos Surround system in my den.
I still don't, but that's beside the point.


Do you get your Dobly sound systems at the same shop you bought your fat screen Sorny LFD TV and your MiiStation?
 
2017-11-08 04:44:50 PM  
Pray they don't alter the deal further.
 
2017-11-08 04:44:55 PM  
Why do I think it's the first part (65% of sales) and not the second part that's the real sticking point.

Anyone betting against TLJ running for at least a month is looking to lose money.
 
2017-11-08 04:45:08 PM  
Unless someone asks me to go I have no plan on seeing it in theaters. Rogue One was boring as hell and this just sours the milk further.
 
2017-11-08 04:46:48 PM  

The Silver Mullet: Disney wants the theaters to boycott and fail so they can roll out their proprietary first-run home streaming service.


Uh, I'm pretty sure they can just do that anyway.
 
2017-11-08 04:48:04 PM  
Snide comment about how superior I am for not caring about this.
 
2017-11-08 04:48:47 PM  
Hey, a-holes, yall do know the reason theaters fought to get a 50/50 split is because Fox and Lucas pulled this kind of shiat with the prequels, right?
 
2017-11-08 04:49:37 PM  
Perhaps the theaters should simply use "Hollywood Accounting", whereby costs for other items are charged back to the Disney film, the same way movie studios operate, and how they screw over anybody naive enough to settle for a "percentage of net" on a film...
 
2017-11-08 04:52:57 PM  
Where are the calls for progressive trust busters?

Trump could easily be persuaded to fight Hollywood and cut into their bottom line.  It's right up his populist schtick.  We have had a wave of consolidation in every industry in America, across the board, in the last 30 years.  It has driven wealth inequality, wage stagnation, and an inability to compete.  The problem is, everyone wants that IPO money and sell-out to the big boys.

We need some new economic incentives in this country to end shiat like this.
 
2017-11-08 05:02:48 PM  

Herbie555: Why do I think it's the first part (65% of sales) and not the second part that's the real sticking point.

Anyone betting against TLJ running for at least a month is looking to lose money.


The sticking point isn't so much 'keep playing it for a month' as it is 'keep it taking up all of your biggest screens that are normally used for new releases and don't move it to the dinky ones for a month'.
 
2017-11-08 05:04:18 PM  

Herbie555: Why do I think it's the first part (65% of sales) and not the second part that's the real sticking point.

Anyone betting against TLJ running for at least a month is looking to lose money.


Small theaters buy multiple copies for event movies when they open. They stagger showtimes of other movies, so they can start another showing before the previous one ends.

For example, the theater I go to is an independent with 5 screens. When "It" opened, a new showing started roughly every hour and a half on opening day, even though the movie was close to 2 and a half hours long. That means they had to order 2 or 3 copies of the movie.
Then as the release went on, the theaters cut back on the showtimes, and by the 4th weekend, It was only playing on one screen during regular, every 2 and a half hour intervals.

If Disney orders theaters like that to keep all the copies from the first weekend running, that can limit the amount of other movies, like awards contenders, that theaters can get when the initial hype of Star Wars starts waning in January.

Not everyone wants to see the same movie 3 or 4 times in theaters, especially when it will be out on Blu-ray and digital by March.
 
2017-11-08 05:08:43 PM  

foo monkey: For The Force Awakens...
Dec 18-20   1    $247,966,675    
Dec 25-27   2    $149,202,860    
Jan 1-3        3    $90,241,673    
Jan 8-10      4    $42,353,785    
Jan 15-17    5    $26,342,117

By week five, TFA was doing about 10.6% of its week one gross.  If the split were 50/50 before, the 65% split puts $124M of the gross back in Disney's pocket.


Won't happen this time. For The Force Awakens, there hadn't been a good Star Wars movie in over 30 years. That gave it some serious staying power.

Even if The Last Jedi is a better movie, some of the novelty effect had passed. It would have to be a VASTLY better movie to sustain the same ticket sales (ie word of mouth and repeat customers) past the second full week.
 
2017-11-08 05:11:21 PM  

stoli n coke: Herbie555: Why do I think it's the first part (65% of sales) and not the second part that's the real sticking point.

Anyone betting against TLJ running for at least a month is looking to lose money.

Small theaters buy multiple copies for event movies when they open. They stagger showtimes of other movies, so they can start another showing before the previous one ends.

For example, the theater I go to is an independent with 5 screens. When "It" opened, a new showing started roughly every hour and a half on opening day, even though the movie was close to 2 and a half hours long. That means they had to order 2 or 3 copies of the movie.
Then as the release went on, the theaters cut back on the showtimes, and by the 4th weekend, It was only playing on one screen during regular, every 2 and a half hour intervals.

If Disney orders theaters like that to keep all the copies from the first weekend running, that can limit the amount of other movies, like awards contenders, that theaters can get when the initial hype of Star Wars starts waning in January.

Not everyone wants to see the same movie 3 or 4 times in theaters, especially when it will be out on Blu-ray and digital by March.


I believe a modern theater can play the same movie on all screens if they want.  Don't need a "copy" for each screen.
 
2017-11-08 05:22:09 PM  
The Movie Gods Must Be Crazy.
 
2017-11-08 05:22:19 PM  
I'm not paying to see the next "Star Wars" movie. I've payed to see almost all of them, but not again.

Th

clkeagle: foo monkey: For The Force Awakens...
Dec 18-20   1    $247,966,675    
Dec 25-27   2    $149,202,860    
Jan 1-3        3    $90,241,673    
Jan 8-10      4    $42,353,785    
Jan 15-17    5    $26,342,117

By week five, TFA was doing about 10.6% of its week one gross.  If the split were 50/50 before, the 65% split puts $124M of the gross back in Disney's pocket.

Won't happen this time. For The Force Awakens, there hadn't been a good Star Wars movie in over 30 years. That gave it some serious staying power.

Even if The Last Jedi is a better movie, some of the novelty effect had passed. It would have to be a VASTLY better movie to sustain the same ticket sales (ie word of mouth and repeat customers) past the second full week.


Yeah, "The Force Awakens" was mediocre, at best.  The new one will still make piles of money, but I think that *many* people have finally realized that we'll never have another GOOD "Star Wars" movie. They're generic action movies. Completely forgettable. Why pay to see it, or see it at all?

/yes, that includes "Rogue One", which was almost as bad as the prequels.
 
2017-11-08 05:28:42 PM  
65% is lower than I remember for first run anything. That seems like a steal.

The one month minimum is the bitter pill.
 
2017-11-08 05:31:43 PM  

mjbok: I believe a modern theater can play the same movie on all screens if they want. Don't need a "copy" for each screen.


Does that include 2D, 3D, and IMAX versions?
 
2017-11-08 05:35:57 PM  

FormlessOne: Here's hoping that theaters boycott the movie. Large theater chains should be telling Disney to fark off, and doing so as publicly as possible, explaining that Disney is screwing theater operators so badly that they can't afford to even capitulate to that deal.

That would be incredible - theaters, as a bloc, telling customers "we'd love to show the film, but as it would be a devastating loss for us, it's simply not economically viable to do so."


Please explain how any of that would at all benefit the theater, whatsoever.   Maybe they can get a pity party out of it, but what good is that?     Its not like this whole thing is a big secret that needs to be exposed, anyway.

The consumer wants the product... Period.....   Are you saying, you're willing to not see the new Star Wars, because you'd rather stand on the picket line with a movie theater?  Get real.

What makes Disney worse than the theater anyway?  Money is the issue here with both entities, is it not?
 
2017-11-08 05:43:49 PM  

stoli n coke: mjbok: I believe a modern theater can play the same movie on all screens if they want. Don't need a "copy" for each screen.

Does that include 2D, 3D, and IMAX versions?



Except for Tarantino, there are no more films being made, everything is a digital copy.

Back in the day when movies came on actual film, theaters would interlock films.  Run the film then one projector in one auditorium and then run it to the projector in the auditorium next door.
 
2017-11-08 05:44:11 PM  
Disney being assholes. Huh.
 
2017-11-08 05:46:21 PM  

stoli n coke: Hey, a-holes, yall do know the reason theaters fought to get a 50/50 split is because Fox and Lucas pulled this kind of shiat with the prequels, right?


Lucasfilm noticed that Movie chains were not keeping track of tickets sold and who went in what theaters.

People's  were encouraged to buy one ticket and spend the day watching whatever they like, buying concessions all day. Movie screens made money on the food, not the actual movie.

Since Lucas was self funding  prequels, he wanted accuracy  (yes, despite everything he's still an independent film producer)

Personally I think Disney is asking for a backlash.
 
2017-11-08 05:52:39 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: stoli n coke: Hey, a-holes, yall do know the reason theaters fought to get a 50/50 split is because Fox and Lucas pulled this kind of shiat with the prequels, right?

Lucasfilm noticed that Movie chains were not keeping track of tickets sold and who went in what theaters.

People's  were encouraged to buy one ticket and spend the day watching whatever they like, buying concessions all day. Movie screens made money on the food, not the actual movie.

Since Lucas was self funding  prequels, he wanted accuracy  (yes, despite everything he's still an independent film producer)

Personally I think Disney is asking for a backlash.


Fox and Lucas demanded 100% of the opening weekend for Attack of the Clones.
Theater owners got hosed with the extra costs and overtime associated with opening early to accommodate crowds.
 
2017-11-08 05:57:42 PM  
I side with the theaters.

As someone who likes going to the movies, I don't want to see theaters squeezed into a lack of profitability.
 
2017-11-08 06:00:42 PM  

fictional_character: Where are the calls for progressive trust busters?


Disney has been in the forefront of shiatty business practices for years between animators getting screwed over to crappy labor practices at theme parks.  There is no limit to what Disney as a corporation will try and screw you over for.

The difference is that they have more money than God to litigate back to the Stone Age and they've managed to become so integrated into our culture and society that the notion that they're anything but perfect, honest and wholesome is mind-blowing to some people.

I have grown friends whose company I enjoy and whom I consider intelligent and reasonable that spend every....goddamned....vacation down in Mouschwitz or Duckau in Anaheim.  They can't be convinced that the notion of going somewhere and doing the same crap over and over again rather than trying something new has any merit.  To them it's like a pizza joint around the corner; they know the product and there's no point in going elsewhere.
 
2017-11-08 06:10:20 PM  

doczoidberg: I side with the theaters.

As someone who likes going to the movies, I don't want to see theaters squeezed into a lack of profitability.


The new luxury theaters added a few revenue streams, such as decent food and alcohol, and higher ticket prices due to the nicer assigned seats. I think moving forward, we will see this more.
 
2017-11-08 06:13:44 PM  

FormlessOne: Here's hoping that theaters boycott the movie. Large theater chains should be telling Disney to fark off, and doing so as publicly as possible, explaining that Disney is screwing theater operators so badly that they can't afford to even capitulate to that deal.

That would be incredible - theaters, as a bloc, telling customers "we'd love to show the film, but as it would be a devastating loss for us, it's simply not economically viable to do so."


Not gonna happen. Theaters make their money in popcorn and cokes.  They will just get more aggressive on pushing the corn.
 
2017-11-08 06:20:08 PM  

doczoidberg: I side with the theaters.

As someone who likes going to the movies, I don't want to see theaters squeezed into a lack of profitability.


Same here  There is a reason they charge such big mark ups on their snacks and drinks.

Seriously its high time the theaters fight back and force studios to knock this shiat out.

refuse to agree with a 50/50 split then no one shows your film.
 
2017-11-08 06:24:03 PM  

stoli n coke: Darth_Lukecash: stoli n coke: Hey, a-holes, yall do know the reason theaters fought to get a 50/50 split is because Fox and Lucas pulled this kind of shiat with the prequels, right?

Lucasfilm noticed that Movie chains were not keeping track of tickets sold and who went in what theaters.

People's  were encouraged to buy one ticket and spend the day watching whatever they like, buying concessions all day. Movie screens made money on the food, not the actual movie.

Since Lucas was self funding  prequels, he wanted accuracy  (yes, despite everything he's still an independent film producer)

Personally I think Disney is asking for a backlash.

Fox and Lucas demanded 100% of the opening weekend for Attack of the Clones.
Theater owners got hosed with the extra costs and overtime associated with opening early to accommodate crowds.


You know what: the theaters cleared up on popcorns, nachos and sodas...as well as any other Star Wars merchandise that was being sold.

So yeah, not gonna cry over their over expansion and greed with multiple theaters playing the same thing,
 
2017-11-08 06:25:09 PM  

LaBlueSkuld: Unless someone asks me to go I have no plan on seeing it in theaters. Rogue One was boring as hell and this just sours the milk further.


Any takers?
 
2017-11-08 06:27:01 PM  
I remember when Raiders of the Lost Ark hit one year at the Fairground Square movie theater in Reading PA when I was a kid.

There were events, an Indy look alike contest, the works!  It was a big deal!
 
2017-11-08 06:29:05 PM  
I Am Altering The Deal
Youtube jsW9MlYu31g
 
2017-11-08 06:29:11 PM  
Lucan film did something similar with the enhanced re-releases of the original trilogy.  The theaters needed to meet certain technological criteria and they had to play them for a certain amount of time.

3 smaller theaters where, 2 of which are where I saw the films originally, closed down.
 
2017-11-08 06:31:52 PM  

BadReligion: doczoidberg: I side with the theaters.

As someone who likes going to the movies, I don't want to see theaters squeezed into a lack of profitability.

The new luxury theaters added a few revenue streams, such as decent food and alcohol, and higher ticket prices due to the nicer assigned seats. I think moving forward, we will see this more.


Yep.  For years, our Go-To theater was an old-school non-stadium seating style small muliplex (like 8 screens), who got by due to an early investment in digital projection/sound and fantastic customer service.  We went there instead of the 24-screen multiplexes because the multiplexes were still projecting on film (and over-using it so it was always scratchy and jumpy with crappy sound), and the small place had a wonderful practice of insta-booting people on phones and noisy teenagers.

Now, we also have a new mini-lux place that took one of those older mini-plexes (10 screens) and re-did everything with luxury seating, booze, etc. and they're making a killing.  I think they're finding that smaller theaters (fewer seats/screen) is working well for them since they have the flexibility to do weird offerings on soft days (e.g. a 2-month long Studio Ghibli festival on Tuesdays), but still pack in the crowds for the big films on the weekends.

Now that I understand what Disney's demanding here, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the theater owners.
 
2017-11-08 06:33:57 PM  

stoli n coke: mjbok: I believe a modern theater can play the same movie on all screens if they want. Don't need a "copy" for each screen.

Does that include 2D, 3D, and IMAX versions?


I would assume those would all be separate files, at least Imax vs. non-Imax.  2D is just one of the two images of 3D so that could be one file.

BafflerMeal: 65% is lower than I remember for first run anything. That seems like a steal.

The one month minimum is the bitter pill.


50/50 is the average.
 
2017-11-08 06:39:22 PM  

mjbok: Wellon Dowd: The theater where I saw Star Wars ran it for well over a year, so one month shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

Well it opened on 43 screens 40 years ago and will probably open on nearly 4000 screens this December so those situations are exactly the same.


Yes, but if a movie that opens on 4000 screens doesn't stay on half of them for a month, then I'd label it as a bomb.
 
2017-11-08 06:41:39 PM  
Maybe it's high time that Disney get introduced to the concept of antitrust laws.
 
2017-11-08 06:52:39 PM  

IlGreven: Yes, but if a movie that opens on 4000 screens doesn't stay on half of them for a month, then I'd label it as a bomb.


You are right, but a screen is not a screen.  Some theaters seat 50, some 500.  Most movies (even blockbusters like TFA) are not at the biggest screen in the theater a month into the run.
 
2017-11-08 06:55:39 PM  

orezona: Disney owns such a large market share of successful movies/properties right now, it would be financial suicide for any theaters to not go a long with this. And Disney knows this and is going to exploit it.

They might as well open up their own chain of theaters, or buy out one or two of them.


They can't. It's not legal.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United​_S​tates_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.


As for the situation at hand, I say fark the theaters.  The Theater Owners' Guild is generally awful, and the "little guy" theaters aren't so little. They're usually legacy theaters that the current owners inherited from parents or grandparents and they make a pretty good living selling nickel fizzy water for $6 per 20 ounces, candy bars that cost them 20 cents each for $5, and popcorn that costs them pennies per bucket for $12 a shot. Oh, yeah, and then there are the actual commercials playing on the screen for half an hour before the movie starts, and the ticket prices which are continually rising well beyond sane levels.

I love going to the movies. I have a MoviePass for exactly that reason, but you can bet your ass I smuggle in snacks, don't buy drinks, and have zero sympathy for the owners of theaters when they cry in their martini.
 
2017-11-08 06:56:04 PM  

Stupid Guitar: Maybe it's high time that Disney get introduced to the concept of antitrust laws.


Difficulty: Copyright Law gives Disney a legal monopoly on the IP, so how exactly would you make the legal argument for breaking them up? You can't really punish them for having valuable and popular IP that is used as leverage during business negotiations.
 
2017-11-08 06:57:13 PM  
You don't mess with the Mouse or he'll cut a b*tch.
 
2017-11-08 07:03:20 PM  
I think I read in an earlier article they also insisted on a cut of the first weekends concessions.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report