
When I was at Sundance, the buzz was about theater chains getting into the distribution game, with Tom Ortenberg at the reins. Regal Entertainment and AMC Entertainment are the chains and they are formalizing a new company to become another film buyer, per an LA Times story. Some at Sundance wondered if this was related to the push by studios to shrink theatrical windows, with the idea that if theater chains generate their own product and give it favorable treatment, it might give studios pause. Ortenberg has been mentioned for a bunch of jobs, including the idea he would take over Bill Pohlad’s Apparition, for which he was consulting after Bob Berney left. More to come.


About time…. This is how it used to be when filmmakers actually controlled their movies. Say what you will about Kevin Smith, he may have used the wrong forum for his message but his message was sound.
Same with Edward Burns… Like his movies or don’t, he’s a man who has taken control of his art. I’m all for theaters getting in the game… With the right ‘outside of the box’ thing and marketing, this could even the playing field a little.
Take control away
Sorry…. I meant ‘outside the box’ THINKING (thanks autospell)
Doesn’t this violate the United States v. Paramount case from the 40s that banned studios to own theater chains? It was a landmark anti-trust law.
I was thinking the same thing…
Those cases apply only to the named defendants who at the time had sufficient market power to merit restraining. These guys are not they, and don’t.
Great question, and I would love to see a fuller response from someone with a better legal mind than mine.
But here’s something: that case also put an end to block booking, the practice of selling multiple pictures in a lump to independent movie houses. The system allowed a lot of B movies to find distribution and also provided a venue for short subject and newsreel material. So on one hand, movies of lower quality were economically protected to a certain degree, which is bad. On the other hand, studios were able to take risks on new talents.
So I’m throwing this out there: in the spirit of “thinking outside the box,” it would be awesome if the theatres were to screen short films alongside the features. Audiences would love it (as they once did before U.S. v. Paramount). Young directors would get a venue for showing their work. Theatre chains would be praised for returning to a practice from Hollywood’s golden era. More Oscar viewers would pay attention to the short film categories. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a winning situation for everyone–a chance to create a short film market that hasn’t existed for decades.
Knoxville, Kansas City and Dallas will begin a new era in motion picture production. Films will be greenlit based on, soda, popcorn and candy sales potential. Marvelous!!
films are currently lit based on popcorn sales potential.
what a stupid comment. obviously unaware of the major impact movie theatres and those who worked for them, had in the late 80′s, supporting, giving independent films and distributors unprecedented success. hello? miramax (the Weinstein original), avenue, goldwyn…i could go on…please join in if you remember.
it was an exciting time for film; not a perfect time, but very exciting. hopefully, we’ve learned from past mistakes and this venture will encourage filmmakers and story tellers…and of course, ultimately, the filmgoers.
Hopefully it will be good for all theatres in a better way than other AMC & Regal ventures (think METLive opera clearances, NCM…)
Theaters? Who watches movies in theaters anymore? Do they drive Edsels too?
This news and the Art House Declaration would be a really good help for the independent filmmakers. Digidoo, I love technology and I’m a big geek but, honestly, I still think that there is nothing like watching a movie projected in a really big screen in a dark theater with a lot of strangers. It’s like going to a bar with friends, we can drink the same beer in our house with the same friends but it’s just not the same.