MGM Loews Theaters Once More?

The Justice Department has signaled that it will wipe out the Paramount consent decrees, orders from the United States v. Paramount Pictures case designed to end monopolies in the motion picture industry.  Prior to the decrees, movie studios also owned the movie theaters their pictures were shown in.  In so doing, they were completely vertically integrated - they owned the means of production, with writers, actors, directors, etc. all on contract and tied to the studio, and they owned the ultimate channel of distribution - they owned the movie theater the picture would be shown in.  They might own the only theater in a market, meaning one town might only get to see Paramount Pictures and not 20th Century Fox, Universal, and the like.  Because they owned the theater, they had complete control over what it would show.  They programmed the shorts, the news reel, and the feature.  They made sure B-pictures got shown an appropriate time, so that the major A-pictures would be carried.

In short the studio was king.

By removing Paramount decrees, it looks like we are going to move back to that time.  The studio believes that with streaming and the new technologies, the decrees are not as relevant.  I would counter that they are more relevant than ever.  Particularly when it comes to vertical integration.

Currently, AMC, Regal (Cineworld), and Cinemark account for half of the American movie theater market.  Meaning, if you are seeing a movie in the theater in America, chances are you are seeing it at one of these three theaters.  What happens when Disney, who now accounts for 1/3 of gross ticket sales, purchases one of these theaters?  If Disney buys the biggest, AMC?

Does Disney make AMC show only Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and 20th Century Pictures?

Does it allow other studios films to be shown at the AMC at a much higher percent of the ticket sales?

Or does it just guarantee its own studios a longer release window?

What happens to a place like Forney where there is just a AMC theater?  Do you only get to see Disney films in that case, having to drive much further to see other studios?

Can smaller, independent theaters actually survive in this market?  Or would studios make bigger demands like Disney did with The Last Jedi, with Disney requiring 65% of ticket sales from each theater, with a four week guarantee window (and an extra 5% penalty for anything less)?

Movie theaters and streaming services are not equivalent.  A streaming service is more equivalent to a broadcast channel, which we've allowed studios to have for a while.  Generally because studios don't control distribution of the channel.  And they don't have distribution of the streaming service either (at least in most cases - that's what makes AT&T/Warner so troubling).  The internet access is independent of the streaming service.  Having Disney+ does not prevent you from having access to Peacock,  Universal's streaming offering, or HBO Max, Warner Bros.' steaming offering.

Disney (or any other studio) owning AMC might make all the difference in other studios films being shown in certain areas.  That's the problem.

Our Justice Department is getting more and more comfortable with monopolies.

That should trouble everyone.

Not just film buffs and historians like me.

The Last Picture Shows

Once again, we have a series of articles proclaiming the death of the movie theater.   It seems despite Avengers: Endgame having the greatest opening weekend of all time and becoming the second highest grossing film of all time (fifth when adjusted for inflation), theaters are not really having that great of a year.  So far this year, $5.62 billion in tickets have been sold, down 10% from last year.

Beyond gross ticket sales, stock prices have felt the effect.  AMC's stock dropped to an all time low on July 2, 2019, representing a decline of 25% year to date, down 50% since 2012.  AMC is the largest theater chain in America.  Its competitors are similarly feeling the pinch.

Problematically, one studio seems to be driving a substantial portion of the health of the movie theaters.  Disney accounted for one third of the gross ticket sales so far this year.  And that's not even including the 20th Century Fox films.  That means, for the foreseeable future, as Disney theatrical releases go, so go movie theaters?  And as Disney pours more and more into Disney+, will there be a greater impact on its contribution to the theatrical total?

Streaming, rental, and home theater has definitely been a large cause of the decline of the modern movie theater.  And honestly I can understand why.  Today, you can have a near theater movie experience at home with all the modern home theater equipment and can avoid all of the theater problems.  The talkers, the unruly kids, the phone usage.  Being stuck in the front row particularly now in the day of choose your seat, where you cannot get a good seat for nearly any movie unless you plan it out days in advance.

The cost of a seeing a film in the theater has also skyrocketed, though it only accounts for a small portion of the theaters profits.  They are still making their money on concessions and food and beverage.  It's why you're seeing so many theaters adding the dine-in options.  To draw away more concessions dollars.

Yeah, I'm not going to lament the death of the mega-plex.

There are benefits, yes, in being able to see whatever new movie is out.  But it's so impersonal.  It's so chain and devoid of life.

Give me a single screen cinema that's being curated.  A mixture of new films and the favorite classics of the owner.  Give me something like the Alamo, with sing-alongs, quote-alongs, and Mr. Pancake presentations.  Give me a drive-in with a double feature.

Give me a theater where you feel like you are part of a club, going through the best of film.

For that reason, I  firmly believe that movie theaters aren't ever going to completely die, they just may go niche.  And that's not a bad thing.   The content will be everywhere.  That may just make the theater experience worth it.

In Praise of Intermissions

With the upcoming Avengers: Endgame release reported to have a 3 hour run time, rumors have started to surface that the film may include an intermission, or interval.  And the discussion has started in earnest, with some praising the decision and others decrying the very nature of intermissions.

Me, I'm completely in favor of adding in an intermission.  I want the cinema experience to be an event.  I know Avengers: Endgame is three hours in running time, but I want more.  I want a Marvel One-Shot short before the main event.  I want an overture, I want the intermission, and I want an entr'acte.

Theaters should want this.  There needs to be some kind of pomp and circumstance regarding seeing a film in the cinema.  Something that makes the cinema experience different than just playing the same movie on a home theater system with surround sound and an ultra high def big screen television.  Intermissions add in that unique factor.  They also provide a second swing at the concession stand for refills and for new purchases.

I know theaters are not fans of long running movies and would prefer to have shorter features granting them more show times.  But if the film is going to be long anyway, having the intermission for a second pass at the snack bar would seem like a good trade.

Jamie and I have sought out a movie experience simply to see something made with an intermission in mind.  When The Hateful Eight came out, we made a point of catching it in Austin so we could see the roadshow production with the overture and the intermission.  And it was worth it.  The film was created as an epic and it deserved that kind of treatment.

Endgame does as well.  And I say bring it on.  Let's making this a fitting capstone for the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far.  It's the culmination of 21 films preceding it.

Let's give it the royal treatment it deserves.