my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Gibson suing Regal over "Passion" underpayment (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Gibson suing Regal over "Passion" underpayment Ron Keillor Expert Film Handler Posts: 166 From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-09-2004 12:59 AM                     from ananova.com "Gibson launches £22m lawsuit Mel Gibson's film distribution company is suing a US cinema chain for nearly £22 million, alleging that it failed to pay its share of box office receipts for the smash hit movie The Passion of the Christ. The blockbuster made hundreds of millions of pounds worldwide when it was released earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Gibson's Icon Distribution Inc agreed that it would receive 55% of gross ticket sales and Regal Entertainment Group would retain 45%. But the suit alleges that Regal, which has about 550 cinemas around the world, has offered to pay Icon only 34%. Icon has claimed 40 million dollars in the suit - nearly £22 million. Icon Distribution was set up in 1990 by Gibson to distribute films made by his Icon Productions."  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-09-2004 06:10 AM                        http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040608/film_nm/leisure_regal_dc_3 Gibson's Icon Sues Regal Over 'Passion' Box Office Tue Jun 8,12:34 PM ET Add Movies - Reuters to My Yahoo! LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Actor/director Mel Gibson (news)'s Icon Distribution Inc. has sued No. 1 movie theater chain Regal Entertainment Group for more than $40 million, claiming Regal failed to pay Icon its fair share of box office receipts for "The Passion of the Christ." In the suit, filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Icon said its agreement with Regal called for the companies to share receipts on "studio terms," which Icon defined as 55 percent of gross ticket sales paid to it and 45 percent retained by Regal. Icon claims Regal has reneged on that deal and offered to pay Icon only 34 percent, instead. "The Passion of the Christ," about the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, was the biggest movie hit of this past winter and spring. It generated slightly under $370 million in domestic markets -- the United States and Canada. The suit did not stipulate how much of those receipts came from Regal theaters, but Icon claims it is owed actual damages in excess of $40 million. Icon also seeks punitive damages. Regal operates over 6,000 movie screens in about 550 theaters around the world. A spokesman was not immediately available to comment. Regal shares edged down 0.2 percent, or 4 cents, at $17.59 shortly after midday on the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites). Privately held Icon was formed in 1990 by Gibson to distribute films made by his Icon Productions film company, of which "The Passion" is one. Privately held Newmarket Films partnered with Icon in distributing the movie to U.S. theaters, but Newmarket is not a party in the lawsuit.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-09-2004 10:15 AM                     Can't find it now, but there's a thread on here that talked about NewMarket and how some chains might be inclined not to pay them what they're owed since they're such a small studio. Hmmm =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 06-09-2004 10:22 AM                     Can someone explain how this works? Should't Newmarket be suing since they get the receipts and pass Icon's share to them. Or does Newmarket get a cut from Icon after Icon gets paid? Also I thought the first couple of weeks were generally pretty high in terms of percentages. Even if you average that with later weeks, how does it come down to 50% of the take regardless of whose position one takes? Don't chains sign some sort of agreeement based on take by week? How can there be a misunderstanding?  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 06-09-2004 11:34 AM                     There are "house nuts" to consider in a deal and a 55% take for a circuit wide situation would be fair...34% is more in line for a throw away independent movie. The chairman of Regal is known to be a religiously conservative person...he probably made his billions on his negotiation skills.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 06-09-2004 12:58 PM                     Too bad a studio's never sued a theater company for bad presentation...  |  IP: Logged Bob Maar (Maar stands for Maartini) Posts: 28608 From: New York City & Newport, RI Registered: Feb 2001 posted 06-09-2004 01:02 PM                        Maybe exhibitor's should sue distributor's for hyping bad product.  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 06-09-2004 03:15 PM                     Or maybe there should also be some lawsuits on the release of DVD's while the movies are still in first run houses!!!  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 06-09-2004 04:22 PM                     Maybe customers should sue exhibitors for bad presentation and distributors for bad product.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-09-2004 06:54 PM                    The house nut comes into a deal as a negotiated figure to be deducted with the remainder split 90/10 in the distributor's favor and that figure compared with a straight percentage of the gross and whichever is greater for the distrib taking precedence. The latter is the one that slides...first week or weeks at x percent, next week or weeks at y percent, etc. With the huge upfront interest in this film 55% overall seems kind of low. The existance of a house nut deal, if it existed here which it might not have, would have no bearing as it only kicks in if the calculation it produces yields an even higher rental.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-09-2004 08:35 PM                        Regal should go ahead and pay up, because Newmarket has not cashed our checks yet from when we played the film 6 weeks ago.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-09-2004 08:42 PM                        Most of the people in Knoxville are Religously Conservative people. I lived there for two years.... But Anyways.... This same thing happened with "Blair Witch" and Regal and Edwards (?) did the same thing. They were sued and settled out of court. Icon is only asking for 15 million more than what Regal was planning to pay them. Taking a 'devil's advocate' point of view on the subject: If every single gross for "Passion" were, let's say, not all called into EDI or Rentrak - how will Icon or Mel ever know how much the film really made at all the Regal locations? I think Regal is on the end that has the advantage here.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-10-2004 10:27 AM                     Good point, Dennis. If the checks match the receipts, then I don't know what Gibson is screaming about. Maybe it's some sort of hodgepodge conspiracy to sue the biggest chain so they will settle out of court for the $40M and then Gibson can comfortably chalk that up to the gross and beat Spiderman like he and Kamakshipalya Dhananjay have been planning all along. LAME LAME LAME!!!! Speaking of which, where was KD on Shrek 2? Seems like that would have been a winning prediction for once =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 06-11-2004 02:32 AM                     Okay, is it really necessary to make fun of the guy in every single thread even slightly related to movie grosses? I'll admit I haven't been following the Farenheit 9/11 thread so maybe things got a little heated and that's why its spilling over into the rest of the damn forum. I will say this though, the guy only posts his comments in relevant threads (usually ones he's started) and he never uses teaser subjects. If you don't value his opinion or find him anyone DON'T READ HIS THREADS! This constant unprovoked badgering of him is a tad childish. As an aside, this isn't directed exclusively at you, Tom.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Cope Master Film Handler Posts: 256 From: Overland Park, KS, United States Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-11-2004 12:22 PM                     quote: Dennis Benjamin Taking a 'devil's advocate' point of view on the subject: If every single gross for "Passion" were, let's say, not all called into EDI or Rentrak - how will Icon or Mel ever know how much the film really made at all the Regal locations? I think Regal is on the end that has the advantage here. Isn't it the case that Regal is upfront with their "renegotiation"? They're being honest about Regal admissions, but saying that they are going to pay Icon only 34% when the agreement was to pay 55%.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.