Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1923 - Mar 1924)

34 EXHIBITORS HERALD March 15, 1924 3. It is more safe for small town exhibitors. 4. Beneficial. 5. No. 6. No. 8. If the percentage can be arranged satisfactorily, it is a much safer plan. By J. J. ENLOE (Y. M. C. A. theatre, Hitchins, Ky. Mining community. Patronage, working class.) 1. No. 2. Unfair to the exhibitor through whom they made the money with which to make the picture big enough to roadshow and afterwards. 4. Not in this little town. 5. That can be done only in large cities. 6. No, not by an "1" of a lot. 7. Let the large exhibitor handle the situation. 8. They are shown only in cities where there are plenty of people. The exhibitor would not be put to the expense to run a big show as a special company, therefore he should not have to rob the patrons. It would bring the "swells" to his house. The exhibitor should have all or none. Do not use the exhibitor for bread and meat and the roadshow for luxury. By E. A. WEBER (Palace theatre, Zwolle, La. Population, 600. Patronage, general.) 1. No. 2. Hurts the small exhibitor. 4. Beneficial. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. 50-50 basis, advertising furnished. By R. S. WINGER (Victory theatre. Union City. Ind. Population, 4,800. Patronage, general.) 1. Never. 2. From exhibitor standpoint, everything. There is no argument for it. 4. People get the idea that we don't have the best until old. 5. No, I am in small town. G. No. 7. Percentage 50-50 after advertising deducted. 8. Exhibitors should go together and not run any picture that has been roadshown. By MARTIN LEVITT (Arc theatre, Lafayette, Ind. Population, 22,000. Patronage, general.) 7. To a limited extent on really extraordinary productions. 3. It gives production a certain prestige which, if legitimate, adds to its box oMce value when used by picture house. 4. Beneficial. 5. Might be a good idea. 6. I doubt it. By D. H. ROCKWELL (Idlehour theatre. Alma, Mich. Population, 6,000. Patronage, general.) 1. Yes, as it is done now. 3. Gives the big pictures added publicity. 4. Beneficial. 5. No. 6. No. 8. I believe that roadshowing of big attractions is a help to the small town exhibitor. By E. L. FRANCK (Mission theatre, Santa Paula, Cal. Population, 5,000. Patronage, general.) 1. No. The Survey In conducting its cxhausthw sun^ey on the subject, "Do you favor or oppose roadsho'iSfing?" the HERALD presented the following questions to exhibitors as suggestive of the many phases of this important subject: 1. Do you favor roadshowing of pictures? 2. If not, what is your objection? 3. If you do favor it, state your reasons. 4. Is the playing of big attractions in legitimate theatres prior to general release detrimental or beneficial to your business? 5. Do you believe that theatres should be classified, some playing big attractions on the two-a-day policy, others playing Westerns, others comedydramas, etc.? 6. Do you believe that there is a possibility of the roadshowing of pictures entirely replacing the present plan of exhibition? 7. If you are opposed to the roadshowing of pictures, what plan of exhibition would you suggest for the costly attractions? 8. In general, what are your opinions on roadshowing of pictures? 2. Admission prices too high for small town houses. 4. Has not been resorted to in this section. Long runs and intensive advertising in big first run city houses are an aid to nearby small town houses. 5. That is each theatre's individual problem. 6. No. 7. Guarantee and percentage, admissions and length of run to be governed by local conditions as well as showing made in metropolitan engagements. By VICK MILLWARD (Harris theatre, Bancroft, Idaho. Population, 350. Patronage, general.) 1. No. 2. The small town exhibitor never gets a chance to play them until out of date and percentage is too high to make any money on them when he does finally play them. 4. This does not bother us in our town. Town too small to care about it. 5. No. 6. There may be a possibility, but I hope it never happens in my day. 7. If the pictures will make money for the exhibitor, he will always be willing to pay for them. Too many roadshows are rotten these days. Make good pictures and the money will be forthcoming. 8. The practice is rotten. The exhibitor has to play all of the cheap pictures to get the good ones, and then in order to play a big picture, has to give about 75 per cent of the proceeds to someone else. We are going to refuse to play any roadshow pictiu-es. .Let them distribute the pictures through the exchanges. By FRED LEVY (First National franchise holder, Louis viUe, Ky.) No. Belong in regular. Rent to exhibitors at fair prices. By FRANK H. BURNS (Beacham theatre, Orlando, Fla. Population, 14,000. Patronage, winter tourist.) /. .Vfl. J. Exhibitor does not get his share. 4. A small town like this really benefits zvhen a picture plays in the big cities first, that is. if we can get it zvithin a reasonable lime. .1. There should be separate theatres for big attractions, but all program pictures should play one h^'^use. 6. Never. /. Give the big pictures to the exhibitor on a rental basis, but if necessary set a fixed admission price. But let him win or lose just as if he were running the ordinary subject. 5. Maybe the big companies feel as though they should roadshow them to make money and, of course, they clear a tremendous profit. But it most certainly robs the exhibitor of the cream of the business after he played all their junk during the year. By C. R. McHENRY (Rosewin theatre, Dallas, Tex. Population, 150,000. Patronage, neighborhood.) 1. No. 2. It has a tendency to create an apparent value that sometimes is nonexistent and causes a high rental not justified by the picture itself. 4. I can't say positively. 5. No. 6. No. I hope not. 7. Playing at first run picture houses in the regular way. 8. I run a neighborhood show and possibly am not constituted as an authority on the subject. By JOHN T. BELGER (Gaiety theatre. Bluff ton, Ind. Population, 5,000. Patronage, general.) 1. No. 2. Exhibitors should have profits on big pictures as well as regular releases, roadshowing preventing this. It also detracts from the motion picture theatre. 4. Not affected locally but know it is detrimental. 5. No. 6. Not in the near future, especially in smaller towns. 7. Place productions in picture theatres at fair rentals or percentage. 8. If pictures are returned later to picture theatre, the big pictures following are hiu-t in the roadshow house as pubhc expects its return and then forgets the