The Exhibitor (1966)

The Trade Paper Read by Choke— Not by Chance Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in September by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 10 McGovern Ave., Lancaster, Pa. 17604. New York field office: 1600 Broadway, Suite 604, New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, 818 S. Curson Ave., Los Angeles, Calif., 90036, London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.: Albert Erlick, editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscrip¬ tions: $2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada and Pan-American coun¬ tries, $5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Single copy 25(i. Second class postage paid at Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. CHANGING ADDRESS? Please send old and new address. If possible include address portion of old mailing wrapper. Volume 76 • No. 16 November 30, 1966 Our 48th Year $2100 ON THE LINE Much has been said and practically nothing accomplished concerning improving the titles on motion pictures. Even the most outspoken industry spokesmen are reticent about calling a spade a spade in this area until after a picture has failed at the boxoffice. Hindsight is helpful at times, but not when the same mistake is repeated over and over again. In the Nov. 23 issue, we commented editorially that a quick | look at upcoming features indicates that “ exhibition will be attempting to sell a. lot of pictures with strange titles ” in the months ahead. We don't make comments like this in order to gain attention or appear smart-alecky. We care too much about the industry to behave in such a manner. However, we do believe that matters of importance to the motion picture industry should be aired publicly and that only through a full and open dis¬ cussion can progress be made. We are going to go out on a limb. We are going to pinpoint j some titles that we think will add little or nothing to the box| office performance of upcoming motion pictures. We may make some distributors and producers angry and we may lose a few pages of advertising in the process at a time when ads are far from plentiful. However, we consider the subject of titles vital to every theatre. Monday morning quarterbacking may be safer, but it seems to us that it is far more valuable to stimulate some industry thought on the subject while there is still a chance to change some titles that figure to hurt pictures rather then help them. The following features are selected from our Yellow Servisection of upcoming features. We sincerely believe that with their present titles, they are starting out with two strikes against them at theatre boxoffices. Certainly, a good title will not turn a bad picture into a successful one. It is equally true, however, that a bad title can definitely hurt a good picture and limit its j appeal. It is our contention that boxoffice performance on the : following pictures will be adversely affected by their titles. We hope we are wrong in every case. For every film mentioned here that turns into a hit, we will happily donate $100 to the [ Will Rogers Memorial Hospital. There will be plenty of j people eager to hold us to this pledge, so we don’t expect we’ll be permitted to forget it. Here is a bet we would much rather lose than win, but we can think of no more dramatic way in which to call attention to a problem that is plaguing every theatreman. Here then is the list of features we think are saddled with particularly bad titles : American International — “VIOLENT JOURNEY”; Buena Vista— “THE GNOMOBILE” and “BULLWHIP GRIFFIN”; Columbia— “30 IS A DANGEROUS AGE, CYNTHIA” and “THE DEADLY AFFAIR”; Continental— “AFTER YOU, COMRADE” and “OMICRON”; Embassy —“CAPER OF THE GOLDEN BULLS” and “THE HELL¬ BENDERS”; MGM— “DON’T MAKE WAVES” and “WELCOME TO HARD TIMES”; Paramount— “THE DEADLY BEES” and “RED TOMAHAWK”; 20th-Fox“THE DAY THE FISH CAME OUT” and “THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM”; United Artists— “RED BEACH” and “MATCHLESS”; Universal— “BANNING” and “ROUGH NIGHT IN JERICHO”; Warners— “THE BOBO” and “BONNIE AND CLYDE.” We don’t profess to know it all. However, we do speak from actual theatre operation experience and from a background of distribution as well, both for independent releases and the majors. We think a good title is a valuable selling assist and that the title is an important part of boxoffice performance. We are putting our money on the line without a chance to earn a single dollar, and $2100 ain’t hay. There should be no comfort in the thought that we have selected only 21 titles for exposure. There are other titles just as bad in the list, but these should serve as an example of what we mean. In a few instances and generally in the hope of garnering some extra publicity, a producer will send a letter out to certain selected exhibitors asking their opinions about a certain title. We would like to see this become common practice in the motion picture industry. We do not say that a committee will come up with a certain winner every time. Put a dozen people in a room, and you may wind up with 13 different points of view. However, if a serious, capable group of theatre executives agree that a title is bad, it would be wise for a distributorproducer to give some thought to changing it. The men who meet the public day after day and year after year may well be better attuned to the tastes of that public. Exhibition is united today under the NATO banner. Here is an area in which NATO might take action to good effect for all the industry. Perhaps a committee of theatremen could be formed to keep an unofficial eye on upcoming titles. When they agree that a title is particularly bad, they might contact the producer or distributor before it becomes too late to make any changes. This might create a bridge of communication between the film-maker and the exhibitor to serve the industry very well indeed. Our point is that a lot more attention should be given to this important question by everyone concerned. We are willing to put our money where our mouth is because we think such an open discussion will serve the industry’s needs. Again, we repeat, we hope we are wrong in every instance and that every one of these films goes on to boxoffice triumph. However, if they do not, we think a good case has been made for giving titles a lot more thought.