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.
WELLINGTON THEATER 581
guide to future buying since they represented the only tangible method of evaluating new product in the light of past performance. A rough comparableness in box office value existed in the productions of a given star from year to year. To a lesser extent, comparisons between different stars having similar characteristics also could be made.
The estimating of future performance from past records, however, was made difficult by reason of the two-feature program offered by the Wellington Theater. Although one of the features was stressed as the leader of the program, the exact proportion of gross receipts earned by each could not be accurately segregated.
A further complication arose from the fact that the relative cost of the two features fluctuated considerably and caused the combined feature cost to vary widely for different programs. This fluctuation was explained by three factors. First, the Wellington Theater purchased pictures for either first-, second-, or third-run exhibition in Whitefield. A spread in price, therefore, even between pictures of a comparable quality, was to be expected when films of a different run were used together on the same program. Second, the choice of play dates and the consequent selection of programs could not be made at the time of purchase. Bookings were made currently as soon as individual release dates permitted availability schedules to be determined for each theater. Consequently, programs, as finally made up, included pictures with varying degrees of comparableness as to run, protection, and dramatic quality. It often happened, therefore, that the price paid for the second feature of a program approximated or was equal to the cost of the featured production. In other instances, while the quality of the pictures might be much the same, one would be a first-run exhibition and the other a third-run exhibition. In such cases the difference in the rental cost of the two pictures would be greater and the total film cost would be less. A third possibility arose when a superspecial was booked with a picture of low cost and average quality. This situation would yield a wide range in price between the two pictures because of the high price paid for the special and would, for the same reason, increase the total film cost of that program above the average. The various rental combinations shown in columns 3 and 4 of Exhibit 2 are illustrative.