|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Have you ever had the public object to a proposed theater?
|
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-16-2015 10:19 PM
Well, you do get feedback from people who are genuinely crazy (asking things like keeping the sound turned way down and the house lights always up, and rewinding the movie whenever anyone asks) but I consider myself at least a bit more knowledgeable than "the average customer". Problem is that I strongly feel the business is heading in the wrong direction, and I KNOW that most higher-ups in the business do NOT like to be told that ANYTHING they do or think is wrong, even when it obviously is. I'm sure most here can agree that designing any new theater with common-width screens is WRONG for example.
I'd like to share the text of the petition that a friend and I came up with, which can be found at: https://www.change.org/p/sywest-development-cinemark-theatres-the-edwards-company-preserve-the-legacy-of-the-century-th eatres
I actually did not expect much to come from this, it was more from the prodding of other more than anything else. The number of signatures is not spectacular but not miniscule either, and it has attracted the attention of the local newspaper as well as the NPR station, a small neighborhood newspaper, and KOVR TV's news.
This is the "main text" for visitors to the petition:
quote:
We invite you to join the many residents of the Sacramento region in
favor of preserving these historically significant venues. We believe the 3 remaining domes should be saved and incorporated into this new development proposal at this Arden-Arcade section.
HISTORY:
The Century 21, with a huge 70-foot curved screen and over 900 seats under a unique dome-shaped ceiling, equipped with 70mm film projection and the latest sound technology, opened in November 1967. Its sister theater Century 22 opened soon afterwards in June 1968. Both showcased Hollywood's biggest movies and were the area's premiere movie venues. They were designed with a space-age theme by architect Vincent Raney, who had already designed several similar theaters in San Jose (originally designed for 3-projector Cinerama), Pleasant Hill, Reno, and Salt Lake City among others. It eventually had two smaller 500-seat dome theaters attached to it, but by 1978 both large domes were split with walls down the middle into awkward half-dome theaters.
RECENT DEMOLITION AND CURRENT PLANS:
Movie fans in Sacramento have hoped for years that the Centurys would someday be restored back to their original glory. Part of that hope was killed on June 2nd, 2015 when Century 21 was demolished. The landowners plan on demolishing the rest of the Century Theatre complex soon, and replacing it with a newly-built theater and other retail buildings. It has been said that efforts were made to restore the old theatres, but were in such poor condition that it was impractical to do so. However, the new theatre planned for the site appears to be nothing special at all and hardly a suitable replacement for the Century domes. Plans from The Edwards Company show it as having a total of 14 screens, but the entire building will occupy LESS space than the current 12-screen Century 22 complex and have only 1650 seats altogether which is an average of less than 120 seats per auditorium! The magnificent Century 21 and 22 domes originally had more than 900 seats each, with the two smaller domes having about 500 each. Based on other recently-built theaters such as the Century Greenback 16 (which replaced the 1980s Cinedomes), these will likely be small, cramped theaters with screens hardly much larger than what many people have at home! It is also very likely that they will not endure for more than 20 years, nor be the source of fond memories for anyone.
The original large Century Theatres introduced many people to the magic of moviegoing- for me personally, they have always been the standard by which I have judged other theaters although very few have lived up to that standard. With home theatre equipment constantly improving and becoming more affordable, consumers expect and deserve something SPECIAL when going out to see a movie. Unfortunately the majority of newer theatres are an embarrassment. Many are designed with common-width screens, meaning Cinemascope movies appear letterboxed as they do at home, rather than on screens made for their full width. (A common criticism has been that "Die Hard" should never be smaller than "Driving Miss Daisy"!) While ideally the Century 22 could be restored to its original glory with any needed additional theatres attached to it, if that is not possible any new theater that replaces it should go all-out to meet or exceed the original theatres' grandeur. Small cracker-box theatres would be an absolute insult to the Century domes' legacy as well as the experiences of future generations. Let's honor and remember what these theatres were and either restore what remains or build a new one that will also be something truly special, and more than just a place to "watch" a movie!
CALL TO ACTION:
Ideally, the remaining Century 22 complex should be restored back to its former glory, including the removal of the wall that divided it in half. It has been an iconic building to the area since 1968; the loss of the Century 21 dome has already drastically altered the appearance of the Arden and Ethan Way intersection. Century 22 should remain the focal point of this area and incorporated into the new development as Hollywood's famed Cinerama Dome was. If the Century 22 building really is beyond repair however, any new theater built in its place should be comparable to it in design and size- not the same sort of embarrassment the Century Greenback 16 was. Sacramento currently does not have any theater worthy of being its "premiere movie venue", but this location should become exactly that!
This is the text that is supposedly emailed to the higher-ups at the company every time somebody signs:
quote:
With the demolition of the original Sacramento Century Theatre complex, we ask that any new theatre built to replace it retain the size and grandeur of the original domes. It seems the current plans are for another small, cramped theatre similar to the Century Greenback 16 which replaced the Cinedome complex, which has been an absolute embarrassment. (A developer's statement referred to them as "screening rooms"!) The Century domes were something very special when they were new, but were unfortunately spoiled by greedy and uncaring owners as well as poorly maintained which is why they are about to be demolished. Let's continue the magic these theaters used to bring by going all-out with the new theater and NOT build another undersized cookie-cutter multiplex with a viewing experience not much different than what we can get at home.
Others in the area are actually a bit unhappy with my wording there, as they want to save the old theater NO MATTER WHAT. I understand the sad realities of the business and realize that truly may not be possible (although if the right people did, it would be something REALLY SPECIAL for this area), and would be happy with a comparable NEW theater in its place. What they're doing here is the same as tearing down a huge supermarket and putting a 7-11 in its place. I'd almost be happier if they built nothing but retail and restaurants on the property with no theater at all.
Yes, I realize businesses can do whatever the hell they want. Even without considering the theater they are replacing though, it just seems severely inadequate for the area- they mentioned that they want it to be an "entertainment destination" but with fewer than 200 seats per screen I don't see how much of a destination that can be. If I were working for that company I would be very embarrassed right now, and if I were in any sort of position where I'd actually be listened to, I would strongly advise against it because it is a potential failure in the long term. Once the newness wears off, I doubt it will be many customers' "favorites" and it certainly won't be one that people from outside the immediate area will seek out and go to. It certainly will not be large enough to host any "gala premieres", and again while the "viability" of another 900-seat theater may be debatable, theaters with fewer than 200 seats each and small screens will not give anyone a reason to go out to that theater rather than stay home. (I'm hoping to upgrade my home system to a projector eventually, which would give me about the same experience at home as one of these theaters. Some consumers are even installing native 2.35 screens in their homes!) People I've shown the plans to have commented "There won't be any protest when it comes time to demolish this one- in fact some may show up to help!" But the attitude of the companies involved seems to be "We can't do anything wrong, this WILL be a great new theater, now just shut up and go spend your money at our properties."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barry Floyd
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1079
From: Lebanon, Tennessee, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 09-17-2015 03:39 PM
We never got "input" from the public on the design of our drive-in, but got spit-roasted at 3 zoning hearings before we gave up on the first community and went 15 miles down the road to another town.
At our first zoning hearing (October 2001), about 80 people showed up at the courthouse to protest the drive-in. Citing things like, traffic, noise, congestion, on-screen pornography, etc., we got voted down pretty much on the spot.
At our second zoning hearing (April 2002), this time trying to re-open the site of the old existing dead drive-in in the same town - the same 80 people showed up to protest. The county commissioner stood up in the meeting and demanded that I "host a community meeting with the surrounding property owners so that I could tell them how much I was going to ruin their property values". (These are the same people who bought their homes right next to the old drive-in when it was open). I held the meeting (which was like hosting your own lynch mob), and as expected.. no minds were changed about the drive-in.
At our third zoning hearing (May 2002) - about 200 people showed up to the court house to protest the drive-in. People took off work, took their kids out of school, had huge protest banners made, and they brought with them a TV news crew from the CBS affiliate in Nashville. I got interviewed on the courthouse steps as the "drive-in developer trying to infiltrate a rural neighborhood." At the actual zoning hearing, I withdrew my request for zoning so I could retain an attorney before proceeding any further.
Long story short... the mayor and Chamber of Commerce president from a neighboring town 15 miles away saw me on the news that night and called each other on the phone. 3 days later, they rolled out the red carpet to the town, secured our 15 acres for the drive-in, put the zoning in place, and almost 1 year later we opened the doors to our theatre.
First year in business - tax revenue went up 47% in our little town. In the twelve years we've been in business, we've employed over 100 folks, drawn in close to 540 thousand visitors to town and it continues to grow each year.
As far as our protesters.... the old drive-in lot is now a new junk yard / scrap metal recycling place.. which must be really nice to live next door to.
I read articles all the time about drive-ins closing and being sold for development and a group from the community tries starting a petition drive, etc. trying to save it. Nothing cold or heartless, but if somebody wants to save an old theatre (indoor or drive-in) from development.... write a check.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-18-2015 02:32 PM
Barry's told his drive-in story here before but it's a great story -- it could be a movie itself!
Interestingly, the area of our town that used to have a drive-in now has a funeral home. The funeral building was originally a luxurious pizza/chicken restaurant, built by the same people who had owned the drive in -- they planned to "get rich" in the pizza business. The restaurant tanked and was remodeled into a steakhouse with attached bar. That didn't work either because the building's atmosphere was too "upscale" for this rural town. Finally the owners turned it into a nightclub with a smaller version of the steakhouse. It went great guns at first (in fact, in my DJ days we played there quite a few weekends and had great crowds) and they seemed to have found the right formula. But then, after a year or so the owners retired, and turned it over to their kids and it only lasted another year or so after that. I'm not sure what went wrong, exactly.
Then it was sold to a church who kept it closed up for six months in order to "purge all the devils" who had inhabited the nightclub. The church went belly-up, and then the funeral company bought it and turned it into a very nice funeral home with a beautiful reception area which they also loan out free to the community for wedding receptions and such. The funeral director is a good friend and a frequent moviegoer, so...I guess it turned out OK, but I still miss the drive-in.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 09-19-2015 03:25 PM
Jesse, unfortunately for you, I think your cries are falling on deaf ears. City leaders are limited by what they can do, as they cannot restrict a business that is operating/developing within the constraints established by the municipality.
For example, they can't dictate things that do not fall within the control of the zoning district in question. If there is an overlay district in place, they will have more control over things like parking requirements, visual appearance, etc. but the city can't do anything about how a theater looks on the inside. Basically, it's the business' right to build a bad design, so long as it's not breaking any laws/ordinances.
The best thing I think you can do at this point is to celebrate what made those theaters great in the past. To be honest, after looking at maps and overhead views of the area and looking at the photos that are on CinemaTreasures, I'm still confused as to the history and layout of the place. I'm sure that someone from the area probably knows what's going on, but for someone not familiar (which may include some newcomers to the area), it's difficult to understand why this place was so great. (I'm not saying it was or wasn't)
I recommend creating a "tribute site" to the theater as it was (with as many photos and descriptions as possible) and allow the new design pale in comparison.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-21-2015 03:11 AM
I wasn't sure how much the city could do, but it seems that they'd at least want something that would be in the area's best interest and frankly this new theater is NOT that. The other people I was with were arguing for keeping the old theater, but were told the demolition permits were handled by another committee and was out of their hands.
I was mainly amused at the reaction of the people from the theater company- If *I* were them, I would've tried to convince me that the design was NOT bad at all and that I'd end up LOVING it there. They could've showed me some more detailed designs of how the inside will look, stuff like that, but the only reaction at the initial meeting was "This was designed by a big company that's put lots of capital into it- do you really think they would do this if it wasn't going to be successful?" Well yes, actually I do- I got out of the theater business mainly because it was heading SO FAR in the WRONG direction, and there was nothing I could do about it.
One of them did also give me the "wall-to-wall screens" spiel, but I replied that probably meant common-width screens with scope movies top-masked or letterboxed- the reaction from that was "uhh....." In meetings after that, when I questioned the adequacy of this new theater they had absolutely NOTHING to say.
quote: Justin Hamaker
But since we probably have less than 20 showings a year where we even reach 90% of capacity, the idea of having more auditoriums with less seating per auditorium is not really troublesome.
Well, what could be the REASON for that? Are your screens already too small, not much bigger than what someone could set up in their home these days? Is there anything amiss with your presentation quality- anything possibly set up wrong? (I've certainly seen it happen, and I KNOW for a fact that many managers hardly ever watch the movies at their theaters or even GO INTO THE AUDITORIUMS much when they're on duty- not saying you're like that, but it's possible!) Lights shining on the screen, or Exit signs that are too bright and annoying (I've seen plenty of that too!) Anything at all? Do you show pre-show ads? Are your prices too high? That might be out of your control but that's something the industry definitely needs to work on. I ask all of this because I remember NUMEROUS times when I ran shows to ZERO customers, and that always made me stop and think as to WHY that was so. The higher-ups of course just shrugged and said "oh well", but anytime you get zero customers is a cause for concern. The problem with theaters in general nowadays is that they're giving customers too little for too much money. I know someone always has a good come-back for that, but sadly it's true.
The older theaters on the property haven't been "great" since 1978, when the second of the two big domes was split in half with a wall down the middle. I honestly don't know how they managed to stay in business that way for 37 years, though in 1994 they added 8 much smaller auditoriums onto one building. Sadly I can't find any pictures of the place in its heyday- some in the area say they're "eyesores" now, but that's only because they haven't been kept up well in the past few years and they used to have lights on the outside that lit up at night but those are long gone now. I drove by it at night recently and you could hardly tell it was there; it SHOULD have been lit up like Hollywood's Cinerama dome is. But this just proves that any theater outside of Hollywood doesn't matter. Bottom line is that the old theaters still could be something special in the right hands, and the new theater is nothing special at all. (Of course I'll still check it out once it opens and I'll gladly change my opinion if I'm wrong, but judging from everything I've seen so far it would take an absolute miracle and some violations of the laws of space and matter for it to be anything significant.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-21-2015 09:55 AM
You could build the nicest, most well run movie theater in the world, yet if the movies are forgettable crap you won't fill the auditorium very often. The movies have to be good to put butts into the seats on a steady basis.
As much as I have enjoyed old premiere class theaters like the Ziegfeld in New York City and the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas, it's really difficult for theaters like that to do well with how movies are currently made, marketed and watched.
20 or more years ago it was common for hit movies to have "legs" and draw crowds for months. Back then a new movie like Jurassic Park, Titanic or Star Wars wasn't going to be playing on some home video format in a matter of weeks. If someone missed seeing a hit movie during its theatrical run he might have had to wait up to a year (or even longer in some cases) before he could buy or rent it on video. Back then home video choices were limited to VHS, Laserdisc and traditional cable. Premiere class movie theaters with just one big 1000+ seat house were able to thrive in that environment.
Back then it was common knowledge the home viewing experience wasn't going to be anywhere near as good as seeing it in the theater. Today that's no longer the case. Movie studios and movie theaters have ditched film for digital. The home viewing experience is all digital. HD is common. Discrete surround sound is common. Things like digital 3D and immersive surround are available to home viewers who want to spend the cash for it. The quality line separating the theatrical experience from the home experience is all but gone. There are still some technical differences, but viewers honestly pay very little penalty at all for waiting just 2-3 months for a digital download or slightly longer for the Blu-ray. Lots of people don't mind streaming it on Netflix (or illegally via things like Popcorn Time).
These business conditions make it very tough for an old, classic movie theater to survive. Modern movie theaters seem to get by now with one or two over-priced big-ish "premium" auditoriums and a bunch of smaller houses so they can cycle content in and out as fast as possible.
The really fatal thing that gets in the way of restoring old movie theaters is building code laws. If you do a significant renovation on an old building it has to be brought up to current code on everything. Electrical, plumbing, handicap access, ADA, etc. That can quickly make a project completely cost prohibitive.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-21-2015 06:00 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
If you do a significant renovation on an old building it has to be brought up to current code on everything. Electrical, plumbing, handicap access, ADA, etc. That can quickly make a project completely cost prohibitive.
That's the truth. That's why our restrooms are completely awful. Tiny, not very user-friendly and no toilet in the men's, just a urinal. We figured out a plan to renovate them to fit a toilet into the men's room AND keep the nice sized ladies room, but none of the doorways are ADA-wide, and there isn't enough room in either room (even as they are now) for a wheelchair access.
The biggest additional problem was, the building inspector said even if we could figure out the restroom issue, if we rearrange any walls we'd have to bring the WHOLE building up to ADA standards which would mean taking out the antique front doors and pretty much rebuilding the whole concession area of the building. Considering we have exactly two people in town who are in wheelchairs and go to movies (and they're not exactly frequent customers, just occasional) we just can't afford to do it and the historic aspects of the building would be lost if we did. So.... we're stuck with our picturesque but small lobby and our crappy restrooms. Your tax dollars at work.
We just moved my other business (auto parts store) into a different building in a better location. We renovated the building, and I would guess that ADA requirements added at least $25,000 to the total cost, even though we have virtually no wheelchair customers (maybe one or two a year).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 09-21-2015 07:05 PM
quote: Jesse Skeen
Well, what could be the REASON for that? Are your screens already too small, not much bigger than what someone could set up in their home these days? Is there anything amiss with your presentation quality- anything possibly set up wrong?
It's not that there is anything wrong with our building or presentation, it's about the realities of the market in 2015. As Bobby pointed out, it's that movies just do not have legs like they used to. Movie watching habits have changed so dramatically over the last 10 years so that it really takes something special to draw in enough people to sell out a showing. Add to that we are in a small market where there just are not enough people to result in sellouts for the average movie.
Even when you have a major blockbuster like Jurassic World, the average showing is not going to be be more than 30-40% full except on the opening weekend. This is why I say smaller auditoriums would not be much of a concern. Although we might sell out more frequently, it would just mean the average showing would fill a larger percentage of a smaller auditorium. Furthermore, if we add several screens while keeping roughly the same number of seats, it would allow us to better deal with the realities of today's market. We could offer multiple screens of top movies more often, and we would be able to show more movies over all - and give more weeks to the average movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-21-2015 10:25 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
Movie watching habits have changed so dramatically over the last 10 years so that it really takes something special to draw in enough people to sell out a showing.
And that's NOT going to happen when theaters are purposefully built that aren't much different than one's own living room. If they can just wait a while to see something at home, what reason do they HAVE to go out to a theater other than a HUGE screen and more powerful sound than what could ever be installed at home? And why even shoot movies in 2.35 anymore if most new screens are just going to letterbox it? A proper BIG 2.35 screen would be reason enough to patronize any theater that has one.
And while there's the issue of "telling someone how to run their business", I was looking through the "Planning Commission Report Addendum" for this project and was surprised by a couple things- One is that they are requiring one parking space per certain number of seats. I worked for a (now-gone) single-screen theater with about 375 seats that was in a regular downtown area with NO adjacent parking at all, and I was once ticketed for parking more than 2 hours after I had parked on the street outside the theater, watched a 7-reel movie and came out to see my car being ticketed! (I fought the ticket and lost, having to pay a fine.)
Another even more baffling thing is that it says: "As part of ongoing business operations: Feature film starting times shall be staggered in the 14 theaters at approximately five-to-15-minutes intervals during the peak evening period between 7:00 and 9:00 PM. No more than three feature films may be scheduled to start at the same time during these hours."
I have to wonder what business it is of anyone other than the theater to say when movies can start. I've always found that megaplexes still schedule most of their shows too close together, so customers deal with crowded lines when people come for more than one movie at a time. If I ran a theater with 16 or so screens I'd space showtimes out so that there was NONE of the usual "dead time" that's usually present from 8 to 9 PM, and you wouldn't have the "rushes" when all 16 movies start within an hour of each other.
But this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy- they're expecting low turnout (despite calling it an "Entertainment Destination") so that's exactly what they'll get. Every good theater should have at least one customer who comes EVERY week (or if it's a single screen, at least once per month or whenever movies are changed), and I'd easily be one of those people but there's just nothing here that's worth my time or money when I've got a decent setup at home. The magic of moviegoing is truly dead.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 09-22-2015 12:01 AM
The purpose of going to the movies for most people is to get out of the house. To enjoy some entertainment without having to worry about the phone ringing or whatever housework needs to be done.
Yes, you can argue that for some people the appeal of the movie theatre is lost when the size of the screen is not ginormous compared to their TV at home. But not everyone views things so technically.
Your comment about scheduling a 16 screen venue doesn't really make a lot of sense. By necessity, movies are going to need to be no more than 10 minutes apart, or you are not making full use of your complex. With 10 minute gaps between show times, it would take you 2 hours and 40 minutes to cycle back to the first screen. Unless the movies is longer than about 2 hours and 10 minutes, that would leave an auditorium under utilized and too large of gaps between shows.
When you're talking about multiple screens of the same movie, ideally you want maximum gaps between start times so as to discourage people for simply waiting for the next show and to maximize the number convenient times. When we run a movie on two screens (we wouldn't have demand for more than 2), I always try to separate the times by at least 45-60 minutes. But sometimes with a longer movie it's difficult to get more than 30-40 minutes separation.
The reality when it comes to scheduling show times is the peak times are around 1:00 and around 7:00. So I always start building my schedule from there are try to leave at least 20-25 minutes between shows. There are also some other realities. For example, shows in the 5:00 hour are usually pointless. We schedule them when we have a popular short movie, but most the time would rather have a more desirable time around 4:00.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic