Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Theater Rules
Alex Bischoff writes "This article gives a good bulleted summary of all the rules theatres have to follow in order to show Star Wars Episode 1. My personal favorite: "Theaters can begin playing the two-hour, 11-minute film at 12:01 a.m. on May 19.""
Thats 12:01 GMT, right?
What? Aren't you supposed to hope for an 11:53 PM on the 18th showing so the movie start promptly at 12:01? :-)
Personally, I'm planning to wait a week to see it. (And I'm not going to read anything here that week. Just to be safe.)
Lucas sucks! Boycott it! Refuse to see it during opening weekend! Tell your friends and family, and make sure they don't go! Friends don't let friends see Star Wars!
With any luck, a boycott would increase my chances of getting a ticket from its current state of being approximately equal to the chances of a baseball quantum-mechanically tunneling through my bedroom wall to being approximately equal to the chances of the sun exploding tomorrow. There's hope yet!
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
What is interlocking? Why would he want only 1 film shown per 1 reel? Are there quality issues he doesn't want to mar his masterpiece?
I'm sure his intentions are not so noble. The theater has to rent (or buy, I'm not sure) each print, so he's making sure he gets all possible money.
Theaters are not to honor passes for the first eight weeks;
It sounds like he doesn't want people buying passes to circumnavigate standing in line and getting a Star Wars ticket, probably to guarantee that everyone who bought a Star Wars ticket will be able to see the show... Similar to his reasoning on not allowing pre-sales and to prevent scalping?
I believe that he was talking about using free passes for access to the film. You know, you're watching a movie and all of a sudden the projector breaks, so the theater gives you a free pass? Well, Lucas says you can't use it to watch his movie.
It's restrictions like these that have jacked up movie prices so much. A friend of mine, a film fanatic, told me that basically the ticket goes to cover the cost that the theater pays the studio for rental of the movie. They don't make much on ticket sales. The theater makes most of its money on the popcorn and soda (who wouldn't, charging $4 for a coke that costs $0.89 at any 7-11?). By placing these childish restrictions on the theaters, he's giving them impetus to raise prices once again. $8.50 in my home town right now. Ridiculous. If a guy takes his wife and 2 kids, that's $34 in ticket sales. For that much money, get the video (or better, dvd).
I swear, I'll wait for the video. Lucas always seemed to have a reputation for arrogance, but now he just seems like a whiny baby. Whether you see it opening day or two weeks later, is it going to matter? I guess for the hardcore StarWars fans. Wouldn't it be great if the world staged a huge protest and made Georgey-boy cry? I could see it now: "George Lucas sobbed uncontrollably at the premiere of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace when nobody showed up." God, that would be great. What an annoying, greedy, obnoxious fellow.
-Begin Evan's Dumb Signature.....
rooooar
In regards to Hitchcock's rules about banning latecomers, I have to agree. I wish lucas had this rule for TPM and I wish is was theater law for every other movie.
I am so sick of getting settled in, sitting at just the right height, everything comfortable, the picture starting and I am either blinded by the light of some jerk opening the door to the theater, or some a-wipe who decides that coming 5 mins late into the movie and then wanting a seat in the middle of the theater and causing everyone to stand up as he moves across. Of course the worse has to be the family unit that comes in late dragging their brats up and down the aisles while whispering and trying to find a seat.
Personally I don't see the point in watching a movie when you have missed even a min of the intro, having worked in the movie industry, I know how important the scene of a movie is to dictate the audiences opinion of it. Of course what ticks me off even more is people who jump up out of their seats and start leaving the theater even before the first credit has run, whats up with that ? Would it really kill you to sit through the credits and not disturb other people and pay respect to all the names of people who put hard work and creativity into the film ? Sheesh...
My little rant....
I'm pretty fly for a white guy
... listen up. Let's look at these requirements:
The film must run in the largest auditorium in the complex and cannot move to a smaller room for the minimum length of the run without permission from Fox;
This is good for the viewer - you get to see the film in the best environment the theater can provide.
Minimum runs are eight or 12 weeks--depending on the market--for theaters that open the film on its May 19 release date. A four-week run is available for theaters that start playing the film five weekends later, on June 18.
If an exhibitor commits to playing the film on two or three screens in a multiplex, the film must stay on those screens for the minimum run as well;
The first may sound draconian, but it would be interesting to see what minimum runs for other large films are. Combined with the second, however, these policies prevent large multiplexes from eliminating their smaller competition in the first two weeks of the run by showing the film on all their screens for the first week or so.
In competitive zones--where more than one exhibitor has theaters--the film must play on at least three screens.
This is a bit ambiguous, but it makes the most sense if "at least three screens" means that at least three exhibitors get the film. Large theater chains often lock up exclusive exhibition contracts on big films, leaving smaller chains and independents with last month's releases. This clause provides for the money to be spread around and ensure that it doesn't all end up in, say, Edwards' Theaters' pockets.
Interlocking, which allows theaters to use one print to present a film on two screens, is prohibited;
I'd be surprised if this weren't a standard clause in most exhibitor contracts, but if it's not, it is intended here to (a) maximize rentals and (b) prevent screwups that could occur when reels get mixed up in transit from screen to screen. While (a) is open to accusations of money-grubbing, (b) is commendable from the consumer's perspective.
Exhibitors may not deduct additional security expenses from the film rental fees they charge Fox;
Not necessarily reprehensible (though I think this is worded incorrectly). Why should Fox or Lucasfilm pay for extra theater security?
Theaters are not to honor passes for the first eight weeks;
Eight weeks may be a little long, but this is fairly standard for most big films.
Payment is to be made within seven days (30-60 days is typical) for the first several weeks;
This is the most obvious example of money-grubbing. It could be argued, however, that as it's Fox's and Lucas' split of the money, they deserve to make the interest on it.
Paid on-screen advertising is prohibited for the first two weeks;
This is a good thing for the viewer.
No more than eight minutes of trailers are to run before the film. (Fox has attached 2-1/2 minutes of trailers to the beginning of the picture.);
This is another good thing.
Theaters can begin playing the two-hour, 11-minute film at 12:01 a.m. on May 19.
This is also a good thing, for both viewers and theater-owners: more showings!
Most of the rules here that don't seem to be standard exhibitor clauses are primarily geared towards optimising the viewer experience and ensuring that as many theaters as possible can get the film. If you live in or near a big city, then you may know the experience of checking your paper to see where the latest big picture is playing and finding out that it's only playing at theaters belonging to one chain, the nearest of which may be a nice 30 minute drive away.
Lucas has frequently stated that he doesn't expect this film to do that well, though it could be argued that he's trying to convince himself of that just in case it doesn't, though in his heart he knows it'll be huge. I think he also knows that there's a strong possibility of a big cultural backlash against Star Wars as a result of too much hype (which is currently being created primarily by the fan base, however).
The film must run in the largest auditorium in the complex and cannot move to a smaller room for the minimum length of the run without permission from Fox;
Is this to ensure that Star Wars always gets the spotlight? Arrogance, or is he trying to ensure that the audience always enjoys the best screens the theatre may have? It seems like he's abusing his power just a bit in order for the viewers to have a good show...
Minimum runs are eight or 12 weeks--depending on the market--for theaters that open the film on its May 19 release date. A four-week run is available for theaters that start playing the film five weekends later, on June 18;
It seems he doesn't want a theatre to show Episode I for only 3 weeks to cash in on opening weekend fever, and to have it available for the length he expects it to run well; 8 weeks in smaller regions, 12 weeks in larger ones. Again, using his power to guarantee *everyone* can see and enjoy it? Very arrogant; perhaps its justified. Any alternative interpretations?
If an exhibitor commits to playing the film on two or three screens in a multiplex, the film must stay on those screens for the minimum run as well;
Is Lucas trying to prevent theatres from planning for a huge opening weekend and then scaling back the showing in the following weeks? I don't know if that's what he intends, or if it's good that he doesn't want it to happen.
In competitive zones--where more than one exhibitor has theaters--the film must play on at least three screens.
In a region big enough to support several theatres, is Lucas rationalizing that there is also a big enough population to force the showing on three screens? Is it 3 per chain, or 3 total in the area?
Interlocking, which allows theaters to use one print to present a film on two screens, is prohibited;
What is interlocking? Why would he want only 1 film shown per 1 reel? Are there quality issues he doesn't want to mar his masterpiece?
Exhibitors may not deduct additional security expenses from the film rental fees they charge Fox;
I guess he doesn't want theatres to justify paying less by arguing they had to provide more security or something... Perhaps this is a big problem? I have no clue.
Theaters are not to honor passes for the first eight weeks;
It sounds like he doesn't want people buying passes to circumnavigate standing in line and getting a Star Wars ticket, probably to guarantee that everyone who bought a Star Wars ticket will be able to see the show... Similar to his reasoning on not allowing pre-sales and to prevent scalping?
Payment is to be made within seven days (30-60 days is typical) for the first several weeks;
I wonder why one week refresh updates is so critical to Lucas; good demographic data? To prevent skimming of profits?
Paid on-screen advertising is prohibited for the first two weeks;
Evidently he doesn't want people to cash in and take advantage of the expected crowds for the movies, in the first two weeks. I think I like and agree with this at least.
No more than eight minutes of trailers are to run before the film. (Fox has attached 2-1/2 minutes of trailers to the beginning of the picture.);
Again, I guess he wants to limit the time wasted, so viewers can enjoy the picture. This would also limit trailers to only those with the biggest budgets, but I guess he doesn't want 15 minutes of trailers in front of his movies, cashing in on it's expected popularity. I guess.
Theaters can begin playing the two-hour, 11-minute film at 12:01 a.m. on May 19
I guess he doesn't want to cheat any of his audience by allowing theatres to show the film at earlier, more expensive, pre-release screenings or something. I'm sure quite a bit of people would pay higher to be the first, and to see it the day before everyone else!
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*