Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1952)

6XHIBITORS FORUfTI Opinions Culled from Organization Bulletins THOSE 70-30 DEALS Gulf States Allied When Metro projected their lavish QUO KDIS into the laps of the exhibitors, their onomical goals were base but conspicusly successful. The terms, very remunLtive for the distributor, were 70% leaving theatre owner the amazing balance of 'o out of which possibility of a profitable agement dropped into a completely unichable accomplishment. Today, as a result of the absence of ified opposition to Metro and their 70% les policy, exhibitors are now faced with Blew and infinitely greater dilemma. Other itributors marking time while Metro cried olf" and achieved their goal, have picked the bravado, and are screaming a volunous 70% for certain pictures about to be eased. As would be expected, Metro is arging off again with the same sales licy and this time the picture is IVANOE. 20th Century-Fox who did a cinemia ortion of Ernest Hemmingway's SNOWS F KILIMANJARO already denounced by veral of the top-drawer critics in a few riodicals, is 70% sales-policy conscious out SNOWS. Since competition between stributors is a war of no mean proportions, Burners is planning on sending out their IRACLE irade. OF FATIMA in this 70% This attack by distributors upon exhition and its economy is avaricious and opessive. It can be met and conquered only ' the same tactical measures. Theatre rners must unite in the strengthening use of survival and turn their ears stoneaf to those unjust demands of distributors, e can all survive without the 70%-ers — \ one, two, three, or six pictures are vital I the theatre's operation — and once the disibutors are convinced that such a feeling I unanimous in the army of exhibition, one I our major buying-problems will be alviated. Stand firm! You cannot realize a profit on hy engagement for which you pay 70%. BITING THE HAND 1 Allied Caravan of la., Neb. & Mid-Central IBITING THE FEEDING HAND AND AKING 'EM LIKE IT: We recently relived a page taken from the Omaha Worlderald containing the movie ads and a Iview of current pictures playing in that |ty. This is the first time we have seen hs paper for a number of years and know [tie about their policy of treatment of the lotion picture industry, but we hope this hge is not a sample of their customary [eatnient. They reviewed several pictures I a one column review and did their level fcst to avoid trying to influence anyone ''>m getting any kind of an impression from current movies other than that they were strictly in the comic book category. We don't know if this is common policy or not. We hope it isn't. But, we'd like to ask them just why in hell they want to bite the hand that feeds them? Just what have they served in knocking the product of one of their most dependable advertising accounts? Do they also write articles telling what a louzy lemon the 1951 Pordolct is? What a stinking job Tiedojoy does in comparison with real roap? What poor quality the shirts from Vanarrow are when you hold them up alongside Monty & Sawbucks? The newspapers don't bite those hands, but when it comes to matters aesthetic they too often take their critic's license so literally that they end up doing untold damage to one of their clients who bears them nothing but good will. It beats me! Just who is so superior that they can tell their fellow man that he will or will not like a certain picture? We grant anyone the right to their opinion, but we doubt that newspapers arc performing any great public service in printing a review that does its best to convince the public that only a sub-moronic mind would want to take the time to watch the picture. We must have criticism to have advancement and improvement, but if there are so damn many newspaper people who know how to make movies so much better, then they're leaking away a lot of dough down the drain, because they could really roll in the jack if they'd get into a producers swivel chair in Hollywood. SHAMEFUL SITUATION Allied of Iowa-Nebraska Over in Friend, Nebraska, exhibitor "Wally" Johnson, one of our Directors, has closed his theatre. Reason — "Poor business caused in part by lack of selected, suitable product at prices in line with business, and decent playing time. No attempt by any local distributor representative to offer proposition whereby theatre could be kept open." For our money, there is hardly any theatre in these territories that cannot be kept open by a little consideration and cooperation by the distributors. And we say a-jain this Friend, Nebraska situation is a damn, dirtv shame! REVEALING BIDS ITO of Ohio We recently advised that United Artists would reveal to the losing bidders what the winning bid was in any situation where competitvie bidding takes place. 20th Century-Fox has announced that it will do the same under certain conditions. We quote from a letter from Al Lichtman, General Sales Manager, 20th Century-Fox, "No offer or bids will be opened until this date (14 days after invitation date); at th.it time all offers and bids will be opened and will be disclosed at the office of the distributor to which the offer was mailed. Then, ONLY on the date the offers are opened they shall be disclosed providing any affected exhibitor or his accredited representative has requested in writing at the time of making the offer that such procedure be followed. We, therefore, suggest that when making a bid that the request for disclosure at the time of award be included. Thus, win or lose, you will know what the other bids were. While this offer is hedged with restrictions, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. NEW TACK FOR 16MM SUIT Allied Theatre Owners of Indiana Most exhibitors attack the government suit that would force the sale of old movies to TV on the basis of the unfairness to the motion picture industry. Rut one of our members makes an attack from a new angle — how the public will be adversely affected if the government is successful. He writes: "Why doesn't our industry get smart, quit howling with pain, and appeal directly to the American people pointing out the manner in which Television network monopolies have conspired with the politicians in P.ig Government to keep FRESH, NEW entertainment OFF TV screens!" "By forcing the sale of OLD movies of the 16mm. 'free show' variety to TV, the set owners face the inevitable prospect of sitting at home night after night and viewing entertainment they already have seen at movie theatres. Not only that, but the reception will be poor and the TV screen too small to capture vividly all the action. "The public has cried long and loud about the ancient films now being shown over TV. If Big Government and their co-conspirators, the TV network moguls, win this suit, TV set owners might as well face the prospect of fewer and fewer LIVE shows, NEW faces and FRESH entertainment. In place of NEW, LIVE shows the}' will see hour and hour upon end of OLD movies interrupted every 15 minutes with a hoppedup huckster selling beer, wine and cigarettes. "Why doesn't Big Government outlaw OLD, SECOND RUN movies on TV and force the TV network monopolies to give the American people more LIVE, NEW programs? Why can't the TV moguls dig down in their bulging pockets, fat with Big Advertisers coin, and produce their own shows with their own talent and with their own money?" FILM BULLETIN October 20, 1952 Page 17