© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Screen. All rights reserved
Multiplex programming in the UK: the economics of homogeneity
What determines the selection of films that end up on the screens of UK multiplexes? Time and again, cinema-goers question why so many venues all show the same thing, despite a low average seat occupancy, whilst other movies struggle to find a place on UK screens. The answer lies less in the range of films that are produced than in the business practices of the distribution and exhibition sectors. These practices have received far less public scrutiny than those of the production sector, yet they are critical in shaping the choice of films available for public consumption.
The UK exhibition industry has been in the news a lot over the last few years. We have heard reports of booming cinema attendance, with admissions for 2002 the best in thirty years. We have also experienced an explosion in the number of cinema screens in the country, which are at their highest levels since 1960. There are now at least 3450 screens at 770 UK sites, over double the number of screens existing in 1990. Over sixty-five per cent of these screens are in multiplex sites, a proportion that has grown steadily as multiplexes account for almost all new builds but only a small proportion of cinema closures.1
Such rapid expansion has not been without problems, however. The number of new screens has grown faster than cinema admissions. Between 1999 and 2000, for instance, screen numbers rose by 6.8% but admissions grew only 2.2% and, more alarmingly, between 2002 and 2003 screen numbers rose by 2.4% while admissions fell by 5.1%.2 What this has meant is tougher competition between cinemas as audiences are spread more thinly. Some cities, such as Manchester and Cardiff, have far more screens than they can fill, although a few, such as Canterbury, remain severely underscreened, normally because local authorities have been reticent about granting planning permission for new builds. As we shall see, such an imbalance in screen numbers can have significant repercussions for cinema programming policy.
Per capita cinema admissions in the UK – around 2.8 visits per year in 2003 – are very low compared with other territories across Europe, as well as the USA, where 5.5 visits per year were averaged in the same period.3 In the late 1990s, the venture capital companies responsible for most of the investment in new sites predicted that providing extra cinema screens, built to a high specification, would boost attendance towards US levels. After the market growth failed to meet their projections, many investors pared back plans for further expansion. There are now few new cinemas in development.
The financial pressures on cinema investors has been further exacerbated by the very high rents that were negotiated in the late 1990s.4 The developers of the new shopping and leisure complexes that house many of the latest generation of multiplexes often attracted cinemas by offering rent-free periods for a fixed duration or until an agreed percentage of units in the development had been filled. Since site rental often vies with film rental as a cinema's biggest expense, the expiration of such offers over the past couple of years has contributed to the considerable financial losses clocked up by many operators.
Pressures of high rents and intense competition for customers has led to many venture capitalists wishing to pull out of the UK industry and practically all of the best-known names have changed hands within the last few years. The largest chain, Odeon, has been sold three times since 2000. Its most recent sale participates in the considerable consolidation that has taken place since 2003 as, along with UCI, it is now owned by Terra Firma Investments. The Cineworld and UGC chains have been sold to Blackstones, who will trade under the Cineworld brand. Vue Cinemas (previously known as SBC) has absorbed both Ster Century and Warner Village. After the Office of Fair Trading challenged Terra Firma's domination of certain local markets, nominated sites were divested from the chain and have recently been purchased by the Irish cinema operator Ward Anderson. It is clear that the market is increasingly dominated by a small handful of companies who remain in intense competition with one another.
Just as the make-up of the exhibition sector helps to determine the range of films accessible to UK cinema-goers, so does that of the distribution sector. This is also dominated by a small number of companies, the leaders of which are the US majors UIP, Buena Vista, Sony (the new owners of Columbia Tristar), Warner Bros and Twentieth Century Fox. Within the last few years, Entertainment Film Distributors has also taken a place in the major league, largely thanks to a deal secured with New Line that allowed the acquisition of a slate of strong titles, most notably the Lord of the Rings franchise (2001–2003). The first of these, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (2001; released 19 December 2001),5 played an enormous role in elevating Entertainment to the highest grossing UK distributor in the first five months of 2002.6 After intense speculation that the company might become the first independent distributor to top this chart, Entertainment was pipped to the post by Twentieth Century Fox.7 In addition to these large distribution companies, there are five or six others that put out at least a handful of mainstream titles each year, along with companies specializing in art house and niche markets. These rarely make any significant impact on the box office, however, with some releasing only one film in a year. In 2003, 479 films were released by 64 distribution companies, but the top six companies accounted for a massive 91.4% share of the total box office.8
The domination of the distribution sector by a small number of companies has, for some time, amounted to a complex monopoly. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has investigated the restrictive practices that this arrangement engenders on a number of occasions, deeming major cinema circuits complicit to some degree, but reserving the weight of its censure for film distribution.9 The OFT's most recent intervention came in January 2002, when it decreed that certain clauses must be removed from the standard terms and conditions of trade issued to exhibitors by the Film Distributors Association as a collective agreement on the part of their members.10 Whilst it is no longer permitted for some conditions to be agreed through a process of collective bargaining, several of the largest distribution companies reinstated the disputed clauses in their own revised individual standard terms. The combination of the majors' market share and the fact that cinema admissions are largely product-driven has ensured that, despite increased consolidation within the exhibition sector, the balance of negotiating power continues to rest with them. Consequently, very little practical change resulted from the OFT's intervention, who announced in July 2003 that UK film distribution would be subject to further scrutiny.11
The most thorough investigation of industry practices in recent years was the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's (MMC) report into the supply of films to UK cinemas. This was prompted by complaints from independent cinemas about difficulties in obtaining popular product as, in an increasingly crowded marketplace, cinemas compete not only for customers but also for prints of new releases.12 The report was published in 1994, leading to new legislation through the Films Order of 1996.13 Nevertheless, the restrictive practices the report uncovered are still in widespread operation and continue to exercise a significant impact on the programming of UK cinemas. To better understand the implications of these practices, it is worth taking a general look at the basic processes involved in releasing films and programming them into mainstream cinemas.
The calendar of UK releases has been extremely packed over the past few years and shows every sign of remaining so in the year to come. Most multiplex programmers base their film plans around a calendar issued weekly by ACNielsen EDI, a company that collates data and sells it back to the industry in a range of useful formats. Each calendar lists the titles due for release over the next six months, their distributors and their release patterns. These include, firstly, saturation releases, which open in virtually every mainstream cinema in the UK. Secondly, there are wide releases of roughly 50–200 prints, which play in most of the larger multiplexes, and perhaps some other sites depending on the nature of the film. Thirdly, there are limited releases, which normally open on less than 50 copies, occasionally with as little as one print, such as Callas Forever (2002; 19 November 2004). Other release strategies include a regional release – Scotland only, for instance – which is normally applied to children's films where school holiday dates vary geographically, but which may also be used for local interest films that are not expected to garner considerable interest elsewhere in the UK. Some films ‘platform’ in the West End, before the release expands across the country. Films that have no obvious hook, but which are expected to generate excellent reviews and word of mouth often open on a relatively small number of prints before going into more cinemas later in the run. A gradual expansion of screen numbers worked to excellent effect when used for Gosford Park (2001; 1 February 2002), which achieved its maximum coverage of 230 screens during its seventh week of release. Platforming may also prove extremely effective for escalating the hype surrounding a film that is already much anticipated. The ploy was used very successfully for the UK release of The Incredibles (2004; 19 November 2004), which opened on just one screen at the UCI Empire Leicester Square, where it grossed a substantial £81,307 in its first three days.14
This sounds like an extremely organized system through which cinemas can select the product they wish to play. One of the main hurdles for programme planners is that release dates are constantly on the move. Distributors regularly try to stake out favourable dates for their major pictures a long time – often more than a year – in advance.15 Bank holiday weekends, in particular, tend to be very attractive to distributors. There was a point at which 22 March 2002, the start of the Easter holidays for most schools, was scheduled for five saturation releases, followed by another six saturation releases, a wide release and a couple of limited releases on the Easter weekend of 29 March.16
In such a situation, it is impossible for all of the distributors to get their films played in as many cinemas as they would wish. In an eight-screen multiplex, for instance, it is rarely possible to handle more than three new releases in a week – just a fraction of the titles originally pencilled in for the 2002 Easter holidays. The inevitable result of such an overcrowding of the calendar is a battle of nerves where most of the distribution companies hold tight for as long as possible, until those handling weaker titles move their films to other dates. Sometimes more titles are moved than is necessary, so one or more may move back again, or else another film may shift into the space. The calendar is consequently in a state of perpetual flux. Over the last couple of years there has been more product slated for release than cinemas can handle, so many titles have been repeatedly shunted to later dates. In 2002–2003, much of this surplus was attributable to the anticipated actors' and writers' strikes of 2001. This threat caused a rush to complete the principal photography of some major releases, as well as the stockpiling of a large number of low-budget teen comedy and horror films, in order to provide for a subsequent shortage of product.17 After lengthy strikes failed to materialize, producers were naturally keen to recoup their investments. The trend has persisted however and, especially in the UK, film production has continued to outstrip the capacity for theatrical release, so that an increasing proportion of films made in this country fail to make it onto cinema screens at all.
A surplus of product may seem to contradict the assertion that there are too many cinemas in some areas, competing with one another for product. Such a strange situation is perpetuated by the practices of both cinemas and distributors, which encourage most sites to play the same titles as each other, at the expense of other movies. In 2002, a mere twenty films accounted for 22.8% of all box office takings in the UK.18
All multiplex operators prioritize projected blockbuster films such as Spider-Man 2 (2004; 16 July 2004). These films often play on multiple prints, with the larger multiplexes sometimes running six or more copies of a single title. Once these tent pole releases are in place, programmers slot the weaker movies, which are more likely to change date, into the gaps. There are certainly clear benefits to booking these second-tier films as early as possible, both in order to secure copies and to allow the cinema to market the film effectively. However, the situation that no operator wishes to experience is that of confirming mediocre titles and then finding that a stronger film has moved to that date, thus causing a problem with the availability of screen space.
Anticipated box office is the main criterion used by cinemas in selecting the product they will play. It is not the only relevant factor though. The way in which a cinema calculates the rental terms paid to distribution companies can also influence programming policy. The payment method used may determine whether it is more profitable for a cinema to show a new release that will attract a reasonably strong audience, or an older film that draws slightly lower admissions.
The negotiation of film terms is critical to both cinemas and distributors. For cinemas, attracting as many customers as possible is a sound basic principle, but they also need to consider the proportion of the ticket money that they will get to keep. Film terms are normally calculated in one of three ways. Some cinemas negotiate straight percentages on a film-by-film basis. When a film is first released, the proportion of the box office takings paid to the distributors is relatively high, usually reducing further into the run. Blockbuster movies command higher rental terms than weaker titles. This not only reflects the costs to the distributor of acquiring and marketing the film, but also the attractiveness of the film to cinemas. An exhibitor would be taking an enormous risk if they refused to play a blockbuster because they felt the film rental was too high, whilst low terms may be one of the only ways of getting weaker films on screen. Straight percentages are normally negotiated on the basis of box office predictions, but other methods of payment are linked more directly to revenue. Some cinemas use a system of sliding scales, where the percentages paid to distributors increase in line with box office grosses at each individual site. The third method is known as the nut system. This places a hypothetical value on each seat in the auditorium which, multiplied by the number of seats, gives a ‘house nut’. If a film grosses less than this ‘nut break’ figure in a week, the cinema will pay only 25% of the gross takings. If, however, this figure is exceeded, they will pay 90% of the excess, or 25% of the takings, whichever is the greater. For a successful film, this system may result in the cinema paying a percentage of the takings that is well in excess of 70%. This system is designed to allow cinemas to cover their running costs and turn a modest profit. It works in favour of the cinema when a film performs badly and the distributor when a film performs well.
Where a cinema uses straight percentages, their share of the takings will almost always increase the longer a film has been out. This means that they may find it more profitable to show an older film to a smaller audience than they will a newer film. Under the nut system, were the film to remain on the same screen throughout the run, the percentage paid would normally fall as the audience for that title ebbed away and takings ceased to exceed the nut break figure. In reality, older films are normally pushed down into smaller screens as audiences shrink. This reduces the nut break figure, meaning that the terms paid can rise as well as fall. The break figure is also reduced if the number of weekly performances is cut. For cinemas using this system there may therefore be less benefit to playing older movies and a greater incentive to open more new releases than there is for those operating on a system of straight percentages.
There are other criteria for cinemas to consider when deciding which films to play. As well as estimating how well a film is going to open in a particular site, it is necessary to evaluate how well it is likely to hold. Will it be front-loaded, like Van Helsing (2004; 7 May 2004), meaning that it will open well before plummeting in week two after disappointing word of mouth, or will it hold well, like My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2001; 20 September 2002), which attracted a larger audience on its second weekend than it did on the first?19 Making these kinds of judgements is crucial for deciding how many new films to open. Understanding the core audience demographic of individual sites is also critical for programmers, as films do not perform evenly across the UK. Central London, for instance, does not represent a large market for children's films. On the other hand, suburban multiplexes with easy road access and free parking prove much more attractive to family audiences. This difference is highlighted by the typical example of The Cat in the Hat (2003; 2 April 2004), which attained 7.8% of the UK gross on its opening week, but only 3.2% of the West End gross.
I have outlined some of the choices that cinemas make in selecting product to play, but other factors frequently inhibit their ability to follow closely the anticipated audience demand. These often result from the activities and demands of major distribution companies. In 1994 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission identified seven practices deemed to be products of a complex monopoly.20 These are as follows:
- Alignment – this occurs when distributors prioritize a particular cinema chain when allocating film prints, or when a cinema chain prioritizes the product of a particular distributor.
- Exclusivity – this is where a contractual agreement is made, which specifies that for a set period of time only one cinema in a given area will be provided with a copy of a particular film.
- Refusal to supply – this practice is criticized if distributors withhold product from certain cinemas without sufficient reason (such as non-payment of debts).
- Minimum exhibition periods – distributors usually demand that, as a condition of receiving a print, cinemas must play a film for a certain number of weeks, irrespective of its performance at the box office. In 1996, new legislation specified a legal limit of two weeks as the minimum exhibition period for a new release.
- Restrictions on screen use – distributors often demand that no other films share a screen with their own film, which must play all shows each day, even if the film does most of its business at a set time.
- Distributor influence on admission prices – since distributors are paid on the basis of a percentage of box office takings, they have sometimes exerted pressure to inflate admission prices. In particular, they are often keen to prevent cinemas from using price promotions in order to develop their audience.
- SFD conditions – this refers to an adherence to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trade issued by the Society of Film Distributors' (now Film Distributors Association, or FDA). These conditions were revised in 2002 at the behest of the Office of Fair Trading.
The MMC findings clearly reveal that the ability of cinemas to select the product they feel best suited to their customers may be hampered by an inability to secure prints as well as by contractual obligations to commit screen space to other titles. Although distributors argue, with often considerable justification, that such demands are necessary to protect their own business interests and to recoup their investment in film prints, the MMC investigation suggests that such activities are sometimes taken too far. Indeed, the range of restrictive practices detailed in their report will strike a chord with historians of US cinema since it reveals striking similarities between the contemporary British film industry and the practices operating under the US studio system.21
Cinema policies can cause problems for distributors too, however. In spite of the excess of screens in many parts of the UK, it can often be very difficult for distributors to place prints of titles with limited box office potential. This is because almost all of the multiplex cinemas want to play the same thing. The franchise instalments, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002; 15 November 2002) and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002; 18 December 2002) each went out on over 1000 prints.22 The last Bond movie, Die Another Day (2002; 20 November 2002), also opened extremely widely on 827 copies. To the frustration of exhibitors nationwide, it opened five days after Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, so that 66% of cinema screens in the UK were taken up by one of these two films.23 Naturally this drastically reduced the choices available for viewers who wished to watch something else.
One of the main reasons that multiplex cinemas are keen to play blockbusters such as these on a large number of screens is that they have found that there is less customer loyalty in the mainstream sector than there is for art houses. The growth of multiplexes has also raised the expectations of customers, so that not only do they expect to be offered a wide range of titles to choose from, but they also expect a wide range of performance times for popular films. Many of the largest multiplexes aim to offer shows of films such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy every half hour or so as, in areas of intense competition, if one cinema is not running the film at exactly the time the customer wants to see it, they will go to a competitor that is.
It has been proven time and again that multiple prints do bolster cinema admissions, but they also reduce the choice of titles on offer to the public. Another effect of using multiple prints is that the distributor's expenditure increases, as film prints cost in the region of £1000 each.24 This cost is then passed on to the exhibitor.25 The use of multiple prints means that more of the customers are accommodated within the first couple of weeks of release, when the film rental terms are at their highest. Moreover, distributors may charge higher rental on second and successive prints of a film than they do on the first. Ultimately, the only two places from which these additional costs can be recouped are from advertising revenue and from the customers themselves, through higher ticket or concessions prices. The practice also disadvantages small art cinemas, who often rely on the profits from a handful of quality blockbusters to subsidise their general policy of showing foreign language and niche product. The saturation of multiplex screens with copies of popular films makes it especially difficult for the small sites to attract the audiences they need to survive.
The use of multiple prints is a currently popular business strategy as blockbusters have become increasingly front-loaded, attracting most of their customers early in the run. Through the strong summer periods, at least one big movie is released virtually every week, and these new openers normally dominate the charts. On its opening weekend, Shrek 2 (2004; 9 July 2004) grossed £10,616,316, almost nine times as much as its closest rival, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004; 4 June 2004), which achieved a relatively paltry £1,211,445 over the same three day period. Although some titles such as Die Geschichte vom weinenden Kamel/The Story of the Weeping Camel (2003; 9 July 2004) or Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004; 9 July 2004) may still be a slow burn, the theatrical shelf-life of movies is getting shorter and shorter. In times of a lot of strong product, each big film opens on multiple prints, supported by a huge P&A (prints and advertising) budget, typically around £1.8 million for a blockbuster. This strategy is geared towards pulling in as many customers as possible on the first weekend because, a week or two later, most of the potential customers will elect to watch the newest blockbuster, whether they have seen the previous one or not.
As the growth in the number of releases has made the UK market increasingly competitive, P&A costs have seen an enormous increase.26 Whilst not all expensive advertising campaigns are as successful as might be wished, unless the distributor has prepared a good marketing plan, they are liable to experience difficulty in placing their product in some cinemas. Small releases – often very enjoyable films with the potential to cross over from art house to mainstream success – rarely get played in most multiplex cinemas, unless product is in short supply, since the lack of advertising increases their commercial risk.
One further point that cinemas need to take into consideration is that the choice of films played may have a significant impact on their concessions sales. The sale of food in cinemas normally accounts for a very substantial proportion of the revenue, with the average per capita spend per visit in the region of £1.20.27 This provides further encouragement for the multiplexes to play films that target young, mainstream cinemagoers. Art house viewers are not traditionally big consumers of high-profit items such as popcorn and post-mix drinks. As popcorn is reputed to have the highest profit margin of any product in the world, it is unsurprising that cinemas are keen to encourage the highest possible levels of consumption.28 Blockbusters such as the Spider-Man films (2002–2004) attract precisely the audiences that buy a lot of it.
In conclusion, there are many forces that come together to shape the pattern of what ends up on UK screens. Some of these arise from the practices of film distribution as a complex monopoly that holds the balance of power over exhibitors whilst also marginalizing independent distributors. At the same time, intense competition between cinemas means that most multiplexes prioritize the same titles, whilst ignoring others. Whereas this has been found to maximize admissions, the policy has also had the detrimental effect to cinemas of raising their film hire costs. For film viewers, the most notable effect of these economic pressures has been the failure of the escalating number of cinema screens to significantly expand their viewing choices.
Since its formation in 2000, the UK Film Council has sought to breach the barriers faced by exhibitors and distributors who wish to make available a wider range of quality filmmaking. In 2002 it acquired a £17 million budget to promote niche product in the UK. Part of this was made available to distributors for the marketing of specialized films.29 Enhancing awareness of alternatives to the mainstream helps to increase its attractiveness to cinemas and the public alike. The bulk of the budget has been allocated to cinemas themselves, in order to create a ‘virtual circuit’ of digital art house screens in both multiplexes and small independent sites around the country. In May 2005, the Film Council named the 209 sites that would benefit from the installation of 238 digital screens, which would be devoted to ‘more specialised (i.e. non-Hollywood), classic, and foreign language movies.’30 This process is currently well underway and is due for completion in 2006.
The adoption of digital projection reduces the cost to distributors of striking and shipping film prints. This makes viable the provision of specialized product to a larger number of cinemas. This will be a boon to the art houses that already rely on such films but who often find it difficult to obtain them on or close to the release date when public awareness and demand is generally at its highest. At the same time, the obligation of participating multiplexes to play specialized product will increase its geographical provision outside the metropolitan areas in which most existing art houses are located.
Publicly funded government intervention, administered by the Film Council on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, may indeed prove to be the only way of sustaining the availability of niche product to audiences across the UK. There is great optimism that the emergence of high-specification digital projection will make a tangible difference in the near future. In the meantime, though, the dominance of film exhibition by multiplex chains shows every sign of engendering an increasingly homogenized experience of cinema going for most audiences.
 |
Notes |
|---|
 TOP Notes |
|---|
1 Pearl and Dean. Http://www.pearlanddean.com (accessed 30 November 2004).
3 Anonymous, ‘Global cinema exhibition’, Screen Digest, September 2004, p. 272.
4 FPDSavills, Commercial Leisure Bulletin, summer 2004, p. 5.
5 For the sake of clarity, two dates will appear in the brackets after the film titles in this article: the year of first release, followed by the precise UK release date in keeping with the topic of the paper.
6 Robert Mitchell, ‘Entertainment is UK distribution champion’, Screen Daily, 13 June 2002. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=8590&st=entertainment+champion&s=3 (accessed 18 April 2003).
7 Robert Mitchell, ‘UK set for close-run race for 2002 distributor crown’, Screen Daily, 3 December 2003. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10431&st=distributor+share+uk+2002&s=3 (accessed 22 April 2003); Robert Mitchell, ‘Schmidt points to flying start for Entertainment’, Screen Daily, 28 January 2003. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10983&st=distributor+top+uk+2002&s=3 (accessed 22 April 2003).
8 UK Film Council, Statistical Yearbook 2003 (London: UK Film Council, 2004), p. 18.
9 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A Report on the Supply of Films for Exhibition in Cinemas in the UK (London: HMSO, 1994).
10 Film Distributors' Association, Standard Conditions for Licensing the Commercial Exhibition of a Film or Films, effective from 1 February 2002. Details of the revisions and the rationale behind them can be found at Office of Fair Trading. Http://www.oft.gov.uk/nr/rdonlyres/31316879-3674-4760-9d51-8f6ca529ad23/0/film.pdf (accessed 30 November 2004).
11 Office of Fair Trading, ‘OFT reviews film distributors orders and postal franking machine undertakings’. Http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press+releases/2003/pn+101-03.htm (accessed 30 November 2004).
12 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A Report on the Supply of Films, p. 7.
13 The Films (Exhibition Periods) Order 1996. Http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19963140_en_1.htm (accessed 30 November 2004).
14 Unless otherwise stated, all box office figures are from ACNeilsen EDI.
15 A general account of the considerations involved in selecting a release date can be found in Film Distributors' Association, Guide to UK Film Distribution (London: FDA, 2002), pp. 6–7. A summary of the main annual film release trends is provided in Steve Rose, ‘The twelve seasons of film’, The Guardian (Review supplement), 29 November 2002, pp. 14–15.
16 The EDI calendars for the weeks commencing 14 January 2002 and 21 January 2002 listed the following saturation releases for 22 March 2002: Ice Age (2002), Thunderpants (2002), The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, a.k.a. Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001), Return to Neverland (2002) and Ali G Indahouse (2002). The Time Machine (2002), ET (20th Anniversary Edition) (1982/2002), Panic Room (2002), The One (2001), Crossroads (2001) and Blade 2 (2002) were scheduled for saturation releases on 29 March 2002 along with a wide release of Hart's War (2002). Of these titles, Thunderpants, The Time Machine, Panic Room, The One and Hart's War were subsequently moved to different dates.
17 Anonymous, ‘Hollywood actors' strike averted at last minute’, The Guardian, 4 July 2001. Http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,,516648,00.html (accessed 30 November 2004).
18 UK Film Council, Film in the UK 2002: Statistical Yearbook (London: UK Film Council, 2003), p. 17.
19 Van Helsing grossed £4,944,422 across the UK on its opening weekend, dropping by 51% to £2,407,082 on the second weekend. My Big Fat Greek Wedding grossed £1,503,436 on its opening weekend, and showed a 7% increase on its second weekend when it grossed £1,605,271, despite a rise of only 1% in the number of screens on which it played.
20 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A Report on the Supply of Films, p. 261.
21 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A Report on the Supply of Films, pp. 308–9. For a more detailed discussion of the restrictive practices operating under the American studio system see Ernest Borneman, ‘United States versus Hollywood: the case study of an antitrust suit’, in Tino Balio (ed.), The American Film Industry (London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 449–62.
22 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was released on 1275 screens at 524 sites, achieving the UK's biggest three-day opening of all time. Robert Mitchell, ‘Potter's record opening has little impact on UK holdovers’, Screen Daily, 20 November 2002. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10319&st=harry+potter+print&s=3 (accessed 18 April 2003). Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was released on 1160 screens in the UK. Robert Mitchell, ‘Towering success: Lord of the Rings sequel goes international’, Screen Daily, 24 December 2002. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10674&st=rings+sequel+uk&s=3 (accessed 18 April 2003).
23 Robert Mitchell, ‘Bond and Potter generate $22.5 m weekend between them from 66% of the nation's screens’, Screen Daily, 26 November 2002. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=10391&st=bond+potter+uk&s=3 (accessed 18 April 2003). This percentage takes into account the practice of interlocking, where a single print is shown simultaneously on two or more screens. This is achieved by running a film on rollers across the projection booth and through a second projector.
24 Film Distributors' Association, Guide to UK Film Distribution, p. 10.
25 Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that film terms have rocketed since the mid-late 1980s. Office of National Statistics, ‘GB Cinemas Enquiry 1950–2001’. Http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=760&More=N&All=Y (accessed 30 November 2004).
26 Leon Forde, ‘UK P&A spend climbs to record levels’, Screen Daily, 17 March 2003. Http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=11634&st=distributor+share+uk&s=3 (accessed 18 April 2003).
27 UK Film Council, 2001 Key UK Industry Facts.
28 Giles Whittell, ‘Cinema's real star’, The Times (supplement), 1 May 2002, p. 2.
29 UK Film Council, Annual Review 2003–4 (London: UK Film Council, 2004), pp. 56–7.
30 UK Film Council, ‘£12 million cinema-going revolution begins in UK as cinemas turn digital’, 26 May 2005. Http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/?p=D4A157780cd7d24E47LmQ4394634 (accessed 27 May 2005).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||