Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMC & Universal Agree To A 17 Day Theatrical Window

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMC & Universal Agree To A 17 Day Theatrical Window

    AP News Story

    Originally posted by AP News

    NEW YORK (AP) — In a sign of how the pandemic is remaking Hollywood traditions, AMC Theatres and Universal Studios on Tuesday announced an agreement to shorten the exclusive theatrical window to just 17 days for the studio’s films.

    The standard window of theatrical exclusivity typically runs about 90 days. Up until now, the largest chains have steadfastly refused to screen films that don’t give releases a lengthy and exclusive run in theaters before moving onto video-on-demand or streaming services. Studios, meanwhile, have increasingly sought to deliver new movies more quickly into the home.

    The new deal covers Universal films — which include the “Fast & Furious” franchise, “Jurassic Park” movies and the “Despicable Me” series — in the U.S. over the next three years.

    After a run of at least three weekends, Universal (and its specialty label, Focus Features) will have the option of steering a film to premium on-demand, including AMC’s own service. The shortened window only applies to premium video-on-demand — which often means digital rentals of $20 — not standard on-demand or other home platforms.

    The agreement repairs a rift between AMC and Universal, which is owned by Comcast Corp. In April, with theaters shuttered nationwide, Universal released the animated sequel “Trolls World Tour” by video on demand. NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell then trumpeted the digital release as a success and said the studio would, even once theaters reopened, “release movies on both formats.”

    That infuriated theater owners. Adam Aron, chief executive of AMC, said the company would no longer play Universal releases and said he would do the same for any distributor that “unilaterally abandons current windowing practices absent good faith negotiations between us.”

    Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but AMC will get a share of the premium video-on-demand revenue.

    “The theatrical experience continues to be the cornerstone of our business,” said Donna Langley, chairman of Universal Filmed Entertainment Group. “The partnership we’ve forged with AMC is driven by our collective desire to ensure a thriving future for the film distribution ecosystem and to meet consumer demand with flexibility and optionality.”

    Aron called it “a historic, industry-changing agreement” that benefits both parties.

    “This multi-year agreement preserves exclusivity for theatrical viewing for at least the first three weekends of a film’s release, during which time a considerable majority of a movie’s theatrical box office revenue typically is generated,” said Aron. “AMC will also share in these new revenue streams that will come to the movie ecosystem from premium video on demand.”

    The deal has potentially profound ramifications for an industry reeling from the coronavirus pandemic. The largest chains have been closed in the U.S. for more than four months. Exhibitors, including AMC, are currently planning on a large-scale reopening by late August, with Warner Bros.′ “Tenet” prepared to usher moviegoers back over the Labor Day weekend, after debuting a week earlier overseas.

    Universal has opted to postpone its largest upcoming films — including “F9” and “Minions” — into next year. The studio sent “The King of Staten Island” directly to homes. Its next scheduled release expected in theaters is “Candyman” on Oct. 16.

    The National Association of Theater Owners declined to comment on the new deal.
    > AMC will also share in these new revenue streams that will come to the movie ecosystem from premium video on demand.

    One has to wonder if this will apply to everyone, or just AMC?

  • #2
    Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but AMC will get a share of the premium video-on-demand revenue.
    Why is everyone so short-sighted in this industry? Great they get "free money" for 3 years to shut up and let the studios do whatever they want. And what exactly happens on year 4, 5 or 10? NOTHING, plus likely an even shorter theatrical window because the precedence will have been set and these actions will have become normalized.

    Comment


    • #3
      If the only reason people go to the theater is exclusive content, the industry wasn’t long for this world anyway. People eat at restaurants and a drink at bars even though you can cook and drink at home.

      Comment


      • #4
        Bars don't sell drinks. Bars sell social atmosphere.

        As for restaurants, many people don't carry a bag lunch around with them all morning (where do you keep it?), and some folks want something more exciting than a half-stale bologna and cheese for lunch.

        Dinner? Well, speaking solely for myself, if my wife isn't around to cook for me for some reason I'll probably go out to eat. And the people who do cook for themselves may not do a plank baked salmon with all the trimmings so when they want one of those, they'll go out to eat. Business meeting? First date?

        Theatres, though, sell both atmosphere and what I think of as water cooler civilization. If I want to go to the bar (ahem) and discuss the latest movie with my buddies then if it's only available in theatres I have a good incentive to go to the theatre so I can see it and keep up with the conversation. "I know you guys all loved that movie; I'll be able to discuss how cool the bad guy looked with you in about three months after I've watched it on video" probably won't work out really well in terms of keeping the conversation going.

        Same thing with last night's football game or a Brittany Spears concert.

        On a somewhat related topic, I had a short debate with one of my regular customers a few days ago about restaurants. He said that they are not an essential business. I pointed out to him that folks like long haul truckers and travelling salesmen would disagree with him. Also, since he's a veteran of something around 30 years in the military, I thought he would be very attuned to the value of having a good food supply and preparation operation near to where-ever he happened to be at the time. (MRE's in a back pack don't seem like much of a long term substitute.)

        Comment


        • #5
          I wonder if AMC is getting their share off the gross or the net.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Frank Cox View Post
            On a somewhat related topic, I had a short debate with one of my regular customers a few days ago about restaurants. He said that they are not an essential business. I pointed out to him that folks like long haul truckers and travelling salesmen would disagree with him. Also, since he's a veteran of something around 30 years in the military, I thought he would be very attuned to the value of having a good food supply and preparation operation near to where-ever he happened to be at the time. (MRE's in a back pack don't seem like much of a long term substitute.)
            Apparently, you can live pretty well on MREs those days.

            Besides the shortsightedness of all of this, "great" for AMC, but what about the rest of the exhibition industry?

            Comment


            • #7
              Amen to almost everything Frank said.

              The only caveat I would add is that the coronavirus restrictions have effectively blown away the advantage of eating at restaurants versus cooking at home. You have to drive out to collect the meal, which can take almost as long as cooking it (OK, you can have it delivered, but if they get your order wrong, you've lost a lot of time getting that corrected), and you still have to clear up, load the dishwasher, etc. afterwards. During the brief period (around 2-3 weeks) earlier this month when restaurants in some counties were allowed to do on site dining, long waits for a table (or reservations only on offer at very inconvenient times), having to wear a mask until the meal is served, a pared down menu, etc. etc. made it a deeply unattractive proposition. We were paying a premium price for a worse experience, objectively, than cooking and eating at home.

              But like every other business, they are "essential," not least because they generate the tax revenue that enables activity that those who don't think very deeply about the definition of "essential" would regard as such. Trying not to veer into politics, the divide-and-rule tactic of political leaders in branding some workers "essential" and others not is a big problem, IMHO.

              Originally posted by Frank Cox
              Dinner? Well, speaking solely for myself, if my wife isn't around to cook for me for some reason I'll probably go out to eat.
              In my household, it's more a case of if I'm not there to cook for my wife and son, they'll probably go out to eat!

              Agreed too with Brad that the AMC deal is a worrying development and represents the thin end of the wedge. I can only assume that they did it because Universal put a gun to their head and threatened to release new content straight to streaming on the break. $20 is no more than a DVD or BD of a newly released title (for home viewing) traditionally cost to buy. Three or four people seeing the movie on a 65" TV in someone's living room, together with supermarket-bought popcorn, is very likely to hit the theaters' business even more than it has been already. That is about a third of what the same party would pay to go to the theater (factoring in everything: tickets, concessions, childcare, maybe parking, etc.), and a lot of people will be prepared to wait three weeks for that saving.

              Comment


              • #8
                It’s not surprising that it’s all older guys in this thread who are afraid of losing exclusivity of product. Because losing exclusivity requires you to try harder and innovate more, which aren’t typically what older folks are interested in doing. I get that it’s scary to think about changing the dynamic, but it is changing.

                People like going out, give them a good reason to visit your establishment when they do. Relying on the movie studios to be that good reason is giving control away to the movie studios. That’s on you.

                Comment


                • #9
                  To be perfectly honest... in this day and age of all-you-can-watch subscriptions like Netflix (and all the other countless streaming services), nobody besides a bunch of uber-fans or rich people that really don't care is going to pay $20 for a single-pop streaming event.

                  I might be perfectly willing to spend $40 per person on a real good meal in a restaurant, but I would never spend the same amount on something I need to cook at home. I'm willing to pay the premium for a beer or cocktail in a bar, but I'd only spend a fraction of the same for the same at home.

                  Hollywood is entirely dependent on the exhibition industry for their current business model. If they really think they can replace that with streaming, they'll fall flat on their faces. I think they got a taste of their own medicine the last few months, where all of the direct-to-VOD releases essentially tanked.

                  Like Frank indicated, a visit to a theater is more than just about the movie. It's still an event, something special, something you most often share with a select group of friends. I've got a pretty well-equipped screening room at my disposal. I've been watching quite a few movies with my wife in there during the local lock-down. While it's great to watch movies this way, and while both picture and sound are as perfect as you could possibly get it in any proper theater, it's not the same as watching a movie in a theater. It's not a social event, it's not really a night out, there's something profoundly missing, something I'm gladly willing to spend a few bucks on...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You're right, Marcel. A proper screening room cannot replace the true theatre experience with phones ringing, people talking, blown speakers and very dim picture.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marco Giustini View Post
                      You're right, Marcel. A proper screening room cannot replace the true theatre experience with phones ringing, people talking, blown speakers and very dim picture.
                      I'm pretty sure that with sufficient effort, I could simulate a likewise experience though. Since we can run all speaker channels through a mixing console, all I need is a proper 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack of theater annoyance sounds to superimpose on the original mix.

                      Maybe I should take our recording gear with me during a theatrical presentation... one that features actual human beings... If they then catch me, my excuse will be that I'm just recording annoying movie theater sounds.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You're right, Marcel. A proper screening room cannot replace the true theatre experience with phones ringing, people talking, blown speakers and very dim picture.
                        I dunno, I saw a movie in the Dolby screening room and it didn't have any of those annoyances, but it DID have the sound up so loud that it was one of the most annoying, miserable movie experiences of my life, despite the sound and picture being tremendous.

                        But seriously, if you have all those problems cropping up at your theater of choice, you need to find a different theater.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A good screening room will most likely exceed the picture and sound of an average theater. It's a great way to watch a movie, but people are just social beings in their root. Even though a movie theater is a place where you're supposed to keep quiet, the fact you're sharing this experience with others is something special. Some of the most special experiences I'd had in a theater were probably all in a packed room.

                          I'm sure people will miss those experiences. That's also why, once we finally bring this behind us, I'm certain that cinema will still exist. Unfortunately, nobody right now can predict in what form...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I swear...every time I see a posting by some twit on social media about how awesome their home theatre is compared to a professional cinema and that they have Dolby ATMOS with whatever numerical version...I'm going to post a layout we've done for a professional cinema and just caption it "But I'm sure your home system is nice too!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One of my long-standing plans (which maybe I'll have the time to do now that things have ground to a halt) is to get the biggest TV I can find, set it on the stage in front of our screen (which is 30 feet wide) and take a picture and then draw a circle around (or an arrow pointing to) the TV set. Caption: "Big screen TV? That's cute."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X