Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Wallowing in nostalgia

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Wallowing in nostalgia (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Wallowing in nostalgia

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-23-2002 07:01 PM

I own a single screen theatre and I just love "wallowing in nostalgia."

One of my favorite parts of the year has long been getting the NATO Encyclopedia of Exhibition and turning to the article about Michael Patrick (of Carmike) in which he said "I don't think it's possible to make money in a single screen theatre these days," and then getting a good chuckle out of that statement. I've apparently been doing the impossible here for nearly 24 years, and the theatre also hummed along quite profitably for 49 years before I came along.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 09-23-2002 07:47 PM

But this recent trend of IMAX blowups and conversions would suggest that there is a market for a big screen, hi rez experience. If a new, big, highly anticipated film opened at every plex but people saw in the ad that 3 or 4 of them were playing it in 70mm I think a lot of people will go out of their way to see it that way just as they used to. And with 65mm origination there would be substantial and noticable improvement in image quality unlike in the blow-up era when it was mostly about sound.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-23-2002 10:47 PM

I agree a market is definitely there for big screen high res shows. The unfortunate thing with these latest IMAX blowups from Super35 ("Apollo 13") and digital videotape ("Episode II"), it seems to suggest the movie studios want to use the IMAX giant screen brand name without actually spending the bucks to make a real IMAX movie.

Movie fans want super high res movies on giant screens. The trouble is we cannot seem to get the movie studios and filmmakers to deliver the product. They only want to deliver the same old thing using the giant screen logos.

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 05-14-2003 03:32 PM

Whoa, I didn't expect to get flamed that badly! [Wink]

I can understand Mike's situation as Forsyth is miles away from the nearest big town.

I bump this up since I read on Cinema Treasures that the Varsity Theatre in Carbondale IL runs its last shows tonight. The Varsity opened in 1940, was twinned in 1972 and became a 3-plex in 1981. Midwest chain Kerasotes Theatres ran the Varsity along with an 8-plex in a nearby mall. A Kerasotes spokesman was blunt as to why the old theater was closing:

quote:
"Theaters of (The Varsity's) type are not the direction that movie exhibition is headed," said Tim Johnson, a spokesman for Kerasotes in Chicago. "Whenever we book a big movie at The Varsity, people would tell us they were disappointed it wasn't at the University Place 8. Consumers speak with their ticket purchases, and there are people who won't go to The Varsity."

At least there's a good trade-off: Kerasotes has built a new 8-plex in Carbondale, all stadium, all digital, opening tomorrow for The Matrix Reloaded. That means 16 screens total in Carbondale instead of 11. Also, Kerasotes plans to go more aggressive on arthouse product as Carbondale is a college town.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 05-14-2003 07:01 PM

The reason most single screeners fail in the metro areas is that they try to go head-to-head with the corporate big boy's multiplexes over the same limited product "Hollywood" is cranking out. There are plenty of films being produced all over the world and many independents in this country that can be booked. It would, however, require that the operators of the single screeners get off their butts and do their own promoting. This is part of what is called "showmanship", something that is generally lacking at the corporate owned mega-whatevers who seem content to let the distributors do the promoting while playing right into their hands. In other words, the distributors are, in effect, running the theatres while the corporate big boys price their tickets and concessions out of reach for many people because they can't make any money on films that are "playing everywhere".

I can run a single screener next door to a multi-plex and do so profitably.

Your views are based on what you have experienced in metro areas. It may surprise you to know there are millions of people who live in medium, small town and rural America who are either served by, or would be thrilled to be served by, single screeners. As I said in my earlier post, there is life outside the metro areas.

| IP: Logged

Robert Golding
Film Handler

Posts: 65
From: Sutter, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-14-2003 10:19 PM

I guess I'm lucky. I run a single screen drive in. Here in California we have very few drive in's left, especially in the valley. The last Century drive in (a 6 plex) will close before summer. That leaves me the only drive in open during the winter months and maybe 5 or 6 open during the summer months. Drive In's are a great way to make a living if you can find one. I pull my patrons from as far away as 200 miles during the summers.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-15-2003 01:20 AM

What Bob said. It's all about intelligent bookings for single-screen houses. Location helps, too. I've been lucky enough to have been involved with several single-screens; some were more successful than others...those that did well were run by people who knew their audience and booked films which they knew would do well with their regular customers.

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 05-15-2003 06:18 AM

2 single screen locally. One is an "intermediate" run house that runs double features and serves liquor (they have a full bar with view of the screen) and pizza from the place down the street. Other is part of a 3-theatre independent group. Both seem to be doing fairly well.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-15-2003 08:07 AM

The problem that most single screen theatres in major markets face is that in many cases, they are forced to hold a film for 4 weeks or more. In a mulitplex, no problem, as new films are opening as other are dying off. In a single, you have 1 or 2 good weeks, and another 2 weeks of crap.

There is a very nice single located 1/4 mile north of NJ is Suffern NY, called The Lafayette Theatre. Under it's new owners, it is kept clean, has nice presentation, and even has a working pipe organ that is played every Friday & Saturday night before the shows.

Lafayette Theatre Web Site

| IP: Logged

Jim Spohn
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 05-15-2003 03:04 PM

At my single screen theatre in Bakersfield, we are not open to the public and only do private screenings at this time. I have overheard kids asking their parents, while walking into the auditorium, "where's the screen?" I assume that this is because most of the multi-screens don't even bother to install curtains. In our theatre after the music is faded to zero and the house lights come down to half, the grand drape opens as the house lights dim the rest of the way out. The show starts with the titles shown on the "title curtain" then that curtain opens and the movie starts on the screen. Add to this the pipe organ concert before the show and first class sound from the film, and now you have entertainment. Many of the new multi-screen theatres are too anticeptic and uninteresting to look at or experience. Our success has been from "Wallowing in Nostalgia", thats where showmanship came from. (and has possibily stayed!!).

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-15-2003 05:46 PM

I think a single screen theater can do well with traditional Hollywood big-budget product. The big thing really depends on the sophistication of the theater.

If the GCC Northpark #1 THX house were still open in Dallas, I would still make the 200 mile drive to watch movies there. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

A single screen house must have something to offer. If it is a modest, smaller house, then yes it might be better served by booking art house product, revivals and other niche titles.

The movie theater chains are missing an opportunity in their theater design. I agree many stadium seated theaters are now just slapped together in a cookie cutter fashion. There may be more sophistication to the cookie cutter, but it is still a cookie cutter nonetheless. "Megaplex" sites that add an IMAX 3D theater are coming along the right idea. Another thing they need to add is one or two really cool, BIG, 1000+ seat auditoriums in the concept. Sony's Lincoln Square in NYC kinda has some of the concept down.

I think audiences want a sense of "ambience" or "atmosphere" in the theater when they see a highly anticipated film. I remember the feeling I would get walking into the 1000+ seat Northpark #1 in Dallas before watching shows like "Apollo 13" or "Titanic". I would think to myself, "now THIS is a real movie theater!" I think it lends itself to the enjoyment of the show. The screen is bigger, projection and sound is better and the whole experience comes off as that: an experience. Too often, the multiplexes only deliver ho-hum show quality.

To address David Stambaugh's P&L question regarding 70mm, yes I think it can be shown to be profitable. If a theater running a large capacity palace is able to show 70mm prints, it can attract bigger audiences and make up for the print cost easily.

Proportionately speaking, many 35mm prints are playing in TINY low capacity houses. The Central Mall 12 theater in my town has the majority of its screens seating under 100. A 35mm print costs what? $1500 to $3000? A DTS 70mm print sans mag striping may cost twice that (I don't know the exact figures, but I strongly doubt a 70mm DTS print would cost as much as a $15K to $20K mag coat print). Anyway, to get to the point, if a palacial high-class theater can seat 1,000+ then it should be worthy of a print that costs 2 to 3 times the price of an ordinary 35mm print.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-15-2003 06:17 PM

Beside the Waikiki theatres that was all closed recently, I used to enjoy going to the movies in San Francisco on a stop over during my many trips to the east and the mid west. They have all closed but I have enjoyed The Northpoint Theatre, The Alhambra, The Regency #1 and #2 and even the old Royal although it looked kind of shabby towards the end of it's life. The only surviving single screen that I think is still in operation is the Castro and the Coronet. The elegant Castro reminds me of the Hawaii Theatre of Performing Arts in Honolulu which used to belong to Consolidated Theatre and was a premiere downtown theatre with the old Princess which was torn down years ago. Gee, how I miss those huge single screen theatres with large screen and wonderful acoustics.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 05-16-2003 12:38 AM

Areas that have no major competition pressures from multiplexes have a far better chance of supporting single screens than in urban areas. The multiplexes can use productive screens to compensate for auditoriums that occasionally have dogs or long-term holdovers booked in. A single with a no-show represents a business that makes no income for an entire day.

Aside from that, what really kills indoor houses is the studio demand that they hang on to a film for 3 or 4 weeks. These theatres are frequently in markets that tap a show out in 2 weeks max. The theater then spreads out what profits it may have made over the first or second decent week, without the ability to bring in fresh product for its market. It's not much different than a fast-food store that only sold french fries. After awhile, you probably wouldn't go back until the place changed its menu.

There's an indoor house in a nearby town of roughly 5,000+ (county population 16,000) that has a long-established single that is competing with a recently built small twin. The single runs only one show per day, even when on the break, and is still doing relatively ok, but has been long-owned by an independent that has his properties paid for. Were someone to buy his indoor, he'd have a real tough time operating the same way the current owner does.

We have a buttload of screens in our county, almost all of them multiplexes. The only single remaining in our immediate market has had a real tough time of it, and is presently leasing to a live theatre group, in lieu of running film. There is one other single in our county that appears to be doing ok, but it has an established history as an art/independent venue.

quote:
from Mike Blakesly:
I've apparently been doing the impossible here for nearly 24 years, and the theatre also hummed along quite profitably for 49 years before I came along.

Could I buy your theatre today, pay myself whatever you're presently taking and add my payments for the theatre on top of that? If so, then you're in an enviable, and probably rare situation.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-16-2003 03:09 AM

the coronet will close within the next couple years; it's already a done deal, apparently. but it's a ua and shamefully runs slides and movietunes. aside from the castro, san francisco also boasts the bridge, the clay, the roxie, and the red vic, as well as several institutional screening rooms (moma, yerba buena center for the arts, sf art institute, etc.) i've never been to the bridge, but i think the castro is the only one that would qualify as a movie palace.

carl

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 05-16-2003 11:18 AM

Kerasotes quote:

quote:
"Theaters of (The Varsity's) type are not the direction that movie exhibition is headed," said Tim Johnson, a spokesman for Kerasotes in Chicago.

No one has taken into consideration that most Kerasotes twin/triple splits of old single-screen houses are hack jobs at best: across-the-middle splits of auditoriums that should never have been divided, leaving 35ft. throws on 40ft. screens, and lenses so short that vignetting and keystoning were impossible to correct. With all respect to my friend Tim Johnson, who had no control over the splits, is it any wonder why people didn't like to see movies in those locations?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.