Lord Of The Rings Not Being Shown In Nations Largest Theater Chain

[Damian]

From what I read at the new (and not improved) Cinescape.com, Regal Theaters will not be showing The Lord Of The Rings when it gets released this December.

Here is the full story

In the kind of BS business decision that Hollywood is infamous for, New Line Cinemas, the power behind LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and RUSH HOUR 2, has changed its exhibitor contracts to such a noxious extent that those films will not be playing at several theater chains. Chief among the chains boycotting the release of RINGS is Regal Cinemas, the nation’s largest theater chain.


The problem comes from New Line’s recent change to what are called “firm term” exhibition contracts with theaters. Under the old system, still used by studios like Paramount, Disney and MGM, studios and theater owners decided on the split of cash from movie releases once the movies were out and both studios and theaters knew how well they would perform.


Firm term contracts require the cash ratio be set before the film is released. Along with New Line, DreamWorks, Warner Bros. and Sony have gone to firm term releasing. It was this firm term releasing that had many theaters taking a bath when movies like GODZILLA tanked at the box office in comparison to what was expected.


As this is an ongoing fight, it is possible, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the problems will be worked out before the films are released. If not, you better check to see if the only theater in your town is Regal, and if it is… find somewhere else to see RINGS.

------------------
"They're us....we're them!"
-Damian

[egman]

I'm not one of many who are eager to see this film, but this type of greedy shit brings out the worst in the film industry.

I can completely understand why Regal refuses to budge. The theaters are already in a bad posistion. Why in the world would they want to make themselves even more vulnerable by putting themselves in contracts that leave them at a disadvantage?

In the end, it's the audience that really takes a "bath." Not everyone lives in a metro area where a theater is only minutes away. Man this really boiles my blood.

[This message has been edited by egman (edited 06-29-2001).]

[clortho]

Hmm, of all the films to boycott, I have to say Regal is truly foolish in doing so with LOTR, which already has a massive word-of-mouth gathering going on.

I think people sometimes forget that studios can also take a bath in losses when a film tanks after spending millions to make it. Considering that each film will cost about 90million, I can completely understand the studio wanting a fixed return in order to at least make back their investment. It doesn't seem like anything underhanded or evil, just a business decision to look after their butts.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[egman]

I know that they are trying to protect they're asses, but in the end they are screwing the consumer with battles like these.

[clortho]

If anyone is "screwing" the consumer, I'd have to say it looks to me more like Regal is doing that by refusing to carry movies from certain movie studios. Studios have to protect themselves first and foremost, otherwise there will be no, or far less, new movies being made. Profits from the summer blockbusters don't always carry the rest of the year in profitability.

Last year many theatre chains far overestimated the demand for theatres and built far too many, and as a result, are having financial problems from their poor decisions. Now they whine and cry when because of the decisions by the people who run the companies don't pan out and threaten to boycott certain studios if they don't abide by the rules they want. Seems much more obvious in my mind who it is that doesn't give a shit about the consumer.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[saraswati]

here's what i don't understand about this: LOTR is virtually garaunteed to at least recoup its expenses. there is a lot of grassroots hype and word of mouth going on, even 6 months/1 year before its premiere, yet the media and studios are being very hush-hush about it. Godzilla, on the other hand, was quite hyped in the media, in comercials/tie ins, and in merchandizing, but i don't remember anyone i knew at the time being excited to see it. in my opinion, opening weekend on Fellowship will probably bring it close to breaking even, even if the film sucks and no one sees it after the first week or so. so it seems to me that regal is just screwing themselves out of a sure thing.

------------------
deep in the heat of the bush...

[Taxi]

I have no love for Reagal cinemas. They've made it pretty clear they don't give a shit what the consumer thinks.

Go New Line/Dreamworks!

[Damian]

Originally posted by saraswati:
here's what i don't understand about this: LOTR is virtually garaunteed to at least recoup its expenses. there is a lot of grassroots hype and word of mouth going on, even 6 months/1 year before its premiere, yet the media and studios are being very hush-hush about it. Godzilla, on the other hand, was quite hyped in the media, in comercials/tie ins, and in merchandizing, but i don't remember anyone i knew at the time being excited to see it. in my opinion, opening weekend on Fellowship will probably bring it close to breaking even, even if the film sucks and no one sees it after the first week or so. so it seems to me that regal is just screwing themselves out of a sure thing.

I agree here. There have been movies already this summer that didn't have quite the hype that Lord Of The Rings does, (Mummy 2, Tomb Raider) that had pretty awsome opening weekends.
I understand that Regal is protecting their ass-ests by doing this, but I don't think they quite understand how much anticipation there is for this movie.

My guess is, there will be some executives at Regal kicking each other in their collective asses after this movies opening weekend.

Now all I have to do is drive either 30 or 50 miles to my closest Century theater to see the damn thing.

------------------
"They're us....we're them!"
-Damian

[This message has been edited by Damian (edited 06-29-2001).]

[BathTub]

one thing to keep in mind is this,in an interview one of the Executives said that LOTR has already paid back 80% of its investment, so this is a sure money winner for New Line,....

I'm also fairly positive that this theatre thing will be sorted out before christmas, as it would hurt the theatre more than New Line

[Dehrian]

I'd have to say that, IMO, Regal is not the bad guy here. Theater chains are going under all over the country. They're only trying to protect themselves. This isn't just a matter of LOTR, but of all New Line films. New Line films, traditionally, are not big moneymakers. The Cell, Thirteen Days, Dark City, etc. They might have been well-received critically, but were not huge at the box office. Regal is looking at their spreadsheet and sees, yes, Rush Hour 2 and LOTR are coming, but what else is on the way? And aside from LOTR big opening weekend, what will its staying power be? No one knows. Fanboys are sure it'll hang around forever, but it could go either way. If they make too many changes from the book it could drive the fanboys away from repeat viewings, and if they don't make enough changes casual viewers may not come back to see it again. It is a risky deal, and one that will last well beyond the season. Studios look at their quarterly reports, but the theaters now have to look at the long term, and this deal has potential to do them more harm than good with a studio with as spotty a track record as New Line.

EDIT: As for this:

in an interview one of the Executives said that LOTR has already paid back 80% of its investment, so this is a sure money winner for New Line,....

I'd love to see this quote, because that's surely bullshit.

LOTR cost about $250 for the three films. Split that up over the three, and that makes, about, $83 per picture. A studio traditionally takes half of the box office receipts. That means the movie has to make about $166 million before they even hit even.

I'd love to know (as I'm sure other studio executives would) how the movie has already made $133 million for them.

[This message has been edited by Dehrian (edited 07-09-2001).]

[BathTub]

as I recall, selling the rights to everything around the world,.. but I will rummage around the torn archives, wasn't that long ago,

wonder how much Burger King alone paid

[BathTub]

found it , didn't take too long I was wrong at 80% http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/990707686
from http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/ebert15.html

Here is Bob Shaye, president of New Line Pictures. He has invested $170 million (270 million I think -Xo) in "Lord of the Rings," which will come out at Christmas. "Everyone thinks we've bet the company," he says, "but after selling the international rights, the video and the after-markets, we're 85 percent covered. What kills me is the cost of sequels. `Rush Hour' cost us $32 million. It's a hit, so we make a sequel. The sequel costs $92 million."

hows that?

[manigrasso]

I'm sure that number is more than a bit inflated, but even if it's not, you'll still have to take into account the massive...MASSIVE advertising campaign that will be underway as the movie gets closer to its premiere date.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it'll make scary money. I'm just saying Shaye is prettying up the numbers to appease stockholders NOW>

[manigrasso]

OH, and one other thing...for 92 million, Rush Hour 2 must have been filmed in outer space. WTF?

[Damian]

Originally posted by manigrasso:
OH, and one other thing...for 92 million, Rush Hour 2 must have been filmed in outer space. WTF?

Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker each got some where between fifteen and twenty million to reprise their roles.

Hard to believe Chris Tucker could command that amount of money. Other then Rush Hour, what else has he done where he had a major role, that did well?


------------------
"They're us....we're them!"
-Damian

[saraswati]

chris tucker, $15 million? he's been in Rush Hour, and he's been in Fifth Element. this is just retarded...

------------------
deep in the heat of the bush...

[DVDriven]

Originally posted by Damian:
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker each got some where between fifteen and twenty million to reprise their roles.

I thought this was a typo, until I checked Chris' pay scale on IMDB. He got $3M for Rush Hour, and *$20M* for Rush Hour 2!! WTH?? Denzel commanded $12M for "The Siege", and he's an accomplished actor with a far better resume. Yet another case of more money than brains at work.

[BathTub]

Basically it means that if LOTR is even just a moderate sucess they are ok

[1138]

Originally posted by DVDriven:
I thought this was a typo, until I checked Chris' pay scale on IMDB. He got $3M for Rush Hour, and *$20M* for Rush Hour 2!! WTH?? Denzel commanded $12M for "The Siege", and he's an accomplished actor with a far better resume. Yet another case of more money than brains at work.

Yeah,. but how much money did The Siege make? Rush Hour 2 is probably going to make a fair amount of money, almost guaranteed. So it's easy for them to pay him that money to bring back what helped make the first one so popular.

------------------
1138 - DVD File Forum Greeter/Moderator
Professor of archeology, expert on the occult, and how does one say it? Obtainer of rare antiquities.