Harrison's Reports (1951)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’s Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.60 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS (Formerly Sixth Avenue) New York 20, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXIII SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1951 No. 2 OPERATION CONFUSION Three pictures that are currently in release or about to be released include Warner Brothers’ “Operation Pacific,” Universal'International’s “Operation Disaster,” and Columbia’s “Operation X.” About six months ago Lippert released a picture under the title of “Operation Haylift.” And, as if the market is not glutted with enough pictures containing the word “operation,” RKO announced several weeks ago that its 1951 releasing schedule will include a picture titled “Operation O.” Moreover, at the time this is written, the Title Registration Bureau of the Motion Picture Association reports that different producers have registered fifteen other titles with the word “operation” in them. At a time when the industry must make every effort to increase attendance and bolster our faltering boxoffice receipts, it is indeed deplorable to find that the producer-distributors, by unwise selection of picture titles that have a similarity to other current pictures, are creating a condition that tends to confuse the movie-goers, with a resultant loss to not only the producers themselves but also the exhibitors. The fact that “Operation Pacific,” “Operation Disaster” and “Operation X” have a close similarity in titles is bad enough, but the fact that all three pictures will be shown around the country at about the same time is even worse. Unlike most of us in the industry who live with motion pictures and easily recognize their titles and producers, the average movie-goer does not remember the exact title of a picture he has seen unless it happens to be a really exceptional film. In the case of the aforementioned three pictures, none belongs in the exceptional category, and in all probability most of the movie-goers who will see any of the three pictures will remain with no more than a vague recollection that the title started with the word "operation.” Consequently, many patrons who had seen, say, “Operation Disaster,” may pass up “Operation X” and “Operation Pacific” in the erroneous belief that they had already seen them. The similarity in titles is even more confusing in the case of “Operation Disaster” and “Operation Pacific,” for both are based on stories dealing with submarines. The advertisements and exploitation on both pictures will, no doubt, play up the submarine themes, with the result that many who will have seen one of the pictures will remain with the impression that the other picture is the same one. Another factor that must be considered is that the similarity in titles of current pictures tends to create a booking problem for the exhibitors, particularly in competitve situations. In view of the fact that the three pictures in question are being distributed by three different companies, the exhibitor who desires to book any one of the pictures has no way of knowing if his competition has booked or will book the other pictures. Hence the possibilty exists that three exhibitors may find themselves playing all three pictures either at the same time or within days or weeks of each other, with the one who has the first playdate being in the most favorable position. The problem will be even more acute in the larger cities, where a number of subsequent-runs may be playing one of the “operation” pictures while other subsequent-runs and possibly a first-run house will be playing the other two pictures. In view of the fact that, under the rules of the Title Registration Bureau, no producer can preempt for his exclusive use one particular word in a title, the three companies involved in the use of the word “operation” in the titles of the aforementioned pictures are within their rights. Nevertheless, all three are equally guilty of poor judgment in permitting their pictures to go out on the market at the same time under titles of such similarity, for each was fully aware of the other “operation” titles that had been registered and used by reason of the fact that the Title Registration Bureau submits daily to the producers a list of the titles registered by all producers. Moreover, the Bureau’s lists point out the similarity in titles wherever they occur. The blunder that has been committed in the selection of similar titles for pictures in current release point up the need for a revision of the rules and regulations under which the Title Registration Bureau operates in order to prevent a recurrence of this situation. And the revision of these rules and regulations need not be confined to titles that have a similar word, such as “operation.” For instance, MGM released in November a picture titled “Dial 1119,” while Allied Artists, through Monogram, released in the same month “Southside 1-1000.” In this case the similarity is not in the wording of the titles but in the fact that both are telephone numbers. Both these pictures have played in the same cities throughout the country either at the same time or within a few days or weeks of each other. Just how many movie-goers may have unwittingly passed up either one of the pictures because of the close booking is any one’s guess. The similarity in titles and the closeness of the release dates of such pictures are matters that should be given immediate study by the producerdistributors. The exhibitors are having enough trouble trying to combat other forms of amusement that have cut into theatre attendance, and they should not be burdened with industry' problems that are of the film companies own making.