Part of the miserable performance of that bottom line is because all of the money spent on the 24 screen gigaplexes, and even the smaller locations, has been for nought. Current distribution packages make these theatres a liability for a certain portion of the year, sustained only by a sugar rush of concession sales, followed by financial fasting as the the fizzling "blockbuster" plays to empty auditoriums.

There IS an answer though, if there is a major circuit that has the balls to try it, and hire the agressive attorneys needed to protect the idea from the initial attempts by the distributors to destroy it.

Exhibitors need to stop trying to be the complete package for exhibition. Since the 1985 ruling that tossed out theatre anti-trust it is possible for those in the production end of the industry to own auditoriums. That decision signaled the beginning of the end of exhibition as a seperate entity, and the eventual loss of clout of the individual exhibitor or circuit.

Exhibitors would now be much better served by acting as landlords that do not get involved with booking, but only rent (on five year leases) individual auditoriums. An 18 plex could have as many as 18 tenents, with the possibility of some of those tenants sub-leasing.

What would happen if this were done properly, with no connection between the owner of the physical plant and the tenants?
The effects would be an ultimate boon to all concerned, even though distributors would at first react negatively.

1. The exhibitor could continue to get all the receipts from the concession. Many circuits depend on this for bread-and-butter and any solution that ignored this would fail.
2. The tenants monthly rents would stabilize the financials of the exhibitor to the point that the continued existence of the physical theatre would no longer be in doubt. CAM (common area maintenence) fees would insure that communal areas would be kept clean and in good repair.
3. A theatre leased by (for example) Sony would be able to take ALL the receipts for a Sony film. If Sony wanted to play for fourteen weeks to an empty auditorium, it would only hurt Sony. If Sony wanted to play a competitor's product to fill its otherwise empty auditorium, capitalism would be served and there would be an incentive for a better releasing schedule and better product.
4. With different "majors" each renting their own auditorium, a varied product mix would almost be guaranteed, since the battleground would be back to getting the most customers rather than cultivating relationships with any individual circuit.
5. The possibility - indeed the practicality - of a few smaller auditoriums leased to private individuals would allow for regular independent and art fare, as well as a return to circuited prints and roadshow engagements.
6. Major studios unable to force multiple screen bookings would want to promote the return of the adult audience, which is currently given short shrift whenever teen and kiddie films dominate the market.
7. Having a few screens always "hungry" for product allows for an opening of specialized fare, such as Hindi or religious films, making the theatre complex a more varied and metropolitan environment.

The landlord exhibitor would contract for projection at certain standards, and would act as a centralized boxoffice to reduce employee expense to the tenants. The standards of projection would be forced to improve when auditorium tenants refused to pay for shoddy presentation.

The key to the whole idea is having totally autonomous individual auditoriums *with a non-compete clause*. When a distributor would start to make unreasonable demands of the booking agent, he or she would be able to legally say "I'm sorry, the individual tenants cannot have the same film playing on two screens at the same time." Alternately, since some auditoriums would be owned by distributors, Sony (again for example) would eliminate the need for any hassle in distribution. Sony corperate would rule that "This film plays in our auditoriums this week, end of story." At the same time, the booker could open up auditoriums for alternate fare. This method of film placement would have some not-so-subtle effects.

It would extend the useful run of movies that had quality. A film like Pearl Harbor can now get in on a single key weekend with a lot of hype, make a killing, and leave both audiences and exhibitors feeling ripped off. This is only possible when the multi-screen format is allowed. When a single screen is used, word-of-mouth kills the effect of the hype.

In contrast, better films which appeal to a thinking audience generally have "legs." These films would be more highly regarded, since their earning potential would be greater than that of the "flash-in-the-pan" cheezy special effects films.

Distributors that developed and showed shit films would lose and go out of business. Distributors who developed a reputation for consistantly excellent product would prosper.

The idea is not without precedent. The old downtown theatres in major cities operated in a somewhat similar fashion. There was a theatre district, and people came to that district to see movies, even though the individual theatres were owned or leased by different companies.

On a larger scale, the same thing happened in retail. Mom and pop stores were overtaken by Sears, Montgomery Ward, and then K-Mart and Wal-Mart (the mega-plexes of retail). These have since lost market share to the mega-malls, where individual tenants join under a single roof.

As an industry, we need to look away from the idea of a mall theatre and towards the idea of a theatre mall. This is the only direction of growth left.

When you guys make millions of bucks, I want full credit for this idea.

A company that could say to Time-Warner-AOL or Sony "We have 500 locations in major cities where you can sell your product" could make a huge deal.