Year book of motion pictures (1925)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

The Outlook By the editor of THE FILM DAILY JUST as 1924 proved a landmark of note to the motion picture industry, the outlook ior 1925 proves as promisingly important. Broadly speaking, 1924 was a splendidly successful period for practically all engaged in this industry. A new year stretches ahead. One indeed would be a seer to anticipate some of the probable happenings — much less the possibility of occurrences which may develop during 1925 — because there are rumblings and indications which, to some thinkers, mean much. Undeniably the greatest problem facing the entire industry within the United States is that which exists between exhibitors on one side, and distributors — backed by producers — on the other. This problem consists broadly of combinations effected for buying purposes, the allocation of product by one exhibitor to the other, and as a result the inability of the distributor to obtain what in his opinion is a fair price for the product offered. It is quite possible that during 1925 the actual locking of horns relative to this question will not occur. It may be that the great battle will be fought later. But there will be skirmishes all along the line. During 1924 more buying combinations developed among exhibitors than at any one period in the history of the industry and there is every indication that these combinations will continue to be organized. This has resulted in a marked decrease in revenue to a large number of distributors and serious thought has been given in many quarters as to what move would best offset this condition. On the other hand many exhibitors maintain that these buying combinations (and the allocation of product) is but the natural result of exhibitors seeking to protect themselves against the far-reaching plans of distributois and producers in the development of their theaters. They maintain — and there is a certain justification to their claim — that in a small manner they are doing only what the larger chain operators have dene, that is, protecting themselves through unified buying to offset the effects of circuit buying by larger and more powerful interests. A number of thinking exhibitors maintain that this move is but a natural evolution of the business which must be fought through. And they frankly admit that when the battle occurs it will be costly and perhaps fatal to certain interests. It is a very serious question, indeed, as to whether or not motion pictures represent a phase of industry which can best be handled through more than a limited number of channels. The grave question arises as to just how many such channels there should be to allow the industry its development and growth so essential and necessary ; at the same time keep within bounds production and distribution costs so that the eventual buyer, the exhibitor, may have pictures at a price, and under such conditions, which will allow him to remain in business and at the same time earn a sufficient revenue upon his investment to justify his continuance in this business. After all, it is the exhibitor who, in the end, must justify the existence of producer, or distributor, or both. It is true that each producing and (Continued on Page VIII) III