Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1962)

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.

Aewpoints APRIL 2, 1962 / VOLUME 30, NO. 7 Gould Gives Pay-TV Kiss-off Jack Gould, eminent television critic of the New York Times, who has ivritten favorably in the past of payTV's potential, recently took another hard look at feevee and came to some fresh conclusions. The following is from Mr. Gould's column in The Times of Sunday, March 18: The subject of toll TV made its semiannual reappearance in the news last week after the United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the national well-being would not be jeopardized by a trial effort to put the arm on the viewer for whatever he sees. Barring a further appeal to the Supreme Court, R. K. O.-General Phonevision is now authorized to proceed with its experiment of persuading setowners in Hartford to acquire suitable gadgetry that will enable them to pay for special shows without commercials and at the same time prevent non-contributors from eavesdropping. The R. K. O. test in which the Zenith Radio Corporation is a participant, calls for transmitting scrambled pictures and sound through the air; the gadget in the home restores the signals to their original state. This system has the dubious novelty of trying to collect the box-office fee after a customer has seen the show, a procedure that strikes some veteran impresarios as an extraordinary example of contemporary courage. The other system of toll TV — that of International Telemeter, a subsidiary of Paramount Pictures — is still running in the Etobicoke section of Toronto. It transmits the pictures and sounds over wires directly linking a central studio to the individual home; it uses a coin machine that collects the fee before disclosure of the theatrical contents. Still a third system — Teleglobe — is standing hopefully on the sidelines. It would send the picture over the air and transmit the sound over private wires. On the theory that lip-readers are not too numerous, it believes it can save the expense of scrambling the picture. But whatever system may be put through its paces on an experimental basis, it increasingly appears that payas-you-see television for the home can conquer almost any obstacle except the green light to go ahead. The tactics of delay by commercial broadcasters and theatre-owners has paid off handsomely, and in toll TV's hour of legal victory there remains only an unrealizable dream. Preoccupation with the mechanics of toll systems always did overshadow the basic problem of programming. For one thing, there never was any substantial mass outcry for pay TV. But several years ago there were assorted interests willing to wait and see if toll TV would get off the ground. It has not as yet and promoters and producers simply could not afford a further delay. Today all college and professional sports — with the one exception of boxing and in some cities hockey — have cast their lot with the present form of advertiser-supported video. The revenue from sponsorship of games is an integral part of the sports world's budget. This income, which would have to be cut off wherever a shift of toll TV was tried, is simply too important to be jeopardized in an experiment of doubtful outcome. BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 123? Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Berne Schneyer, Publication Manager; Max Garelick, Business Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 550 Fifth Avenue, New York 34, N. Y., Circle 5-0124; Ernest Shapiro N.Y. Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, $3.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS, $5.00 in the U. S.i Canada, Europe, $9.00. Similarly, motion pictures of comparatively recent vintage have steadily become available and are being shown in prime evening time on one network and before long will be exhibited on a second chain. The size of the stockpile of filmed fare that originally was expected to sustain toll TV has steadily decreased with the passage of time. The inevitable sequel to these developments is that pay-as-you-see TV is left with an especially agonizing version of the age-old riddle of which came first, the chicken or the egg. If it is to persuade an audience to buy the idea of paying for what it sees, it must offer shows that free video is not providing. But if it is to pay for such attractions, it must have a substantial audience. The cause of pay TV actually has been greatly harmed by the exaggerated publicity claims with which it has been plagued. Certainly for some time it is going to be idle to talk of presenting an evening of the Metropolitan Opera or a Broadway hit in the home. It's simply not in the economic cards. Conceivably, pay TV may have a role as a sort of wired extension of the neighborhood movie house, though the continuing silence on the Etobicoke experiment would not seem to justify rash predictions even on that score. Where pay-as-you-see TV could have more immediate value is in the field of adult educational video. It would require only a very small TV audience paying modest fees to be a major financial aid to an educational institution. But this presupposes the availability of enough channels for such purposes, a highly complex problem in itself. Actually, the over-all prospects for pay video were far brighter several years ago than they are today with the intensified entrenchment of video's existing form. And if the commercial broadcasters are nudged into a higher standard of performance and educational TV comes along, toll television is going to have a much harder time making a case for itself. Film BULLETIN April 2, I9A2 Page 7