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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Cinemark tries to do a nice thing, gets angry response (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Cinemark tries to do a nice thing, gets angry response Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-04-2013 09:23 PM                        Giving this some thought, I think if I was Cinemark I would have just opened this location with no fanfare at all. Just turned the lights on and opened. The way they're doing it, all these bloodhound media goons will be swarming all over the place asking people stupid questions like "How does it feel to be going back into the same location where all those people were shot?" and then later, "Were you able to enjoy the movie sitting right there in the same room where the carnage took place?" etc. They'll have to brace for similar nonsense on the anniversary of the shooting. They should just be glad there are no more Batman movies for awhile.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-05-2013 12:08 AM                       Mike says, "Hmm, now who's on a quest for profits?" I would cut the parents some slack and not imply in their present tender state of looking for a handout. Meantime, you are taking the reports of the press as accurate regarding the parents words and context, while trashing the press for being news hounds for an opening that has not yet happened. Can't have it both ways. I don't get why you seem to be the most angry or perhaps bitter person on this topic. You've always struck me as very pleasant. Finally, I don't think a cinema could operate in a big city market without publicity, ads, or press.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-05-2013 01:02 AM                        I guess I do get a little bitter at the media. I think the problem is caused by the fact that there are SO many news outlets all having 24 hours of time to fill every day, and each willing to do anything (rational or not) to "scoop" the competition. Then you have our "reality-TV" influenced culture that thinks it has to poke its head into everything, whether it's a private matter or not. Then you add on top of that all these people who "speak on condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to speak about the issue" and the whole thing just sort of sets me off. The part about the parents' "quest for money" just struck me as kind of interesting, since one of the same people who is all in favor of a Cinemark boycott is also wanting a share of the profits. But, I can see where those people are not exactly thinking rationally yet. I guess I've been putting more of my pleasant side on Facebook these days and my curmudgeonly side is coming out here lately. Sorry about that, I'll try to be more balanced! quote: Sam D. Chavez trashing the press for being news hounds for an opening that has not yet happened. Based on just about every disaster or tragedy in the recent past, it's pretty easy to speculate that the news reporters are going to be all around that cinema on opening night bombarding people with questions, taking photos of any people who happen to be crying, etc. That's why I suggested they should have just had a soft opening with no fanfare or even advertising.  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 01-05-2013 01:03 PM                        I don't find it fair that a business gets punished because something happened that was out of their control. To close the place and put 50-80 people out of work in a poor economy is wrong. I think the company was trying to do what they felt was the right thing if they reopened the building without inviting the families they would have been criticized. I blame our society how long did it take after the Sandy Hook tragedy to have a lawsuit filed? Does anyone really believe that there are not lawyers trying to convince the families to hire them to find a way to sue Cinemark? Cinemark did not make the coward that did this they did not ask for it so why should they be villanized.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-05-2013 03:30 PM                     I think Cinemark was a tad bit insensitive with this particular ploy. It would have been better for them to just leave the issue alone. I strongly disagree with the notion Cinemark should demolish this theater. No one working for Cinemark planned this shooting. It is not the company's fault this shooting happened. Why should they pay a GIANT penalty over it? This is a little different than bulldozing a McDonald's in San Diego or a Luby's restaurant in Kileen, TX. Let's be clear, new movie theaters these days cost a SHIT-TON to build, especially in a highly populated market like Denver, Colorado. It's a sure fire bet Cinemark already has a long term lease contract with some third party over the property on which this existing theater stands. The company would be looking at demolition costs of the existing theater, income loss from that theater and costs of breaking their lease with the property owner. Then Cinemark would have to find a comparable site in that area on which to build a new theater (if they even could do so). The new site would probably cost even more to lease and Cinemark would have to pony up current construction costs for a new build. On top of this, the property owner of the existing theater might want to sue Cinemark. Rhetorical question: why? If Cinemark demolished that theater public demands would be even greater on the property owner to turn the site into a memorial. A commercial property owner isn't gonna make squat for money off a memorial sitting on his property. Now if the taxpayers of Denver, CO want to compensate Cinemark and the property owner enough money for the theater to be demolished and other cost related issues to be handled then it I suppose it would be okay to replace the theater with a memorial. For now, any such demands are an unfunded mandate. Too often too many people in the general public have this belief corporations have infinite amounts of money in the bank and can absorb infinite amounts of losses to their bottom line. This is despite the fact most of the big movie theater chains have been in and out of bankruptcy over the last 15 years. quote: Mike Blakesley I guess I do get a little bitter at the media. I think the problem is caused by the fact that there are SO many news outlets all having 24 hours of time to fill every day, and each willing to do anything (rational or not) to "scoop" the competition. Worse than that, these so-called 24 "news" networks are often willing to run news stories with absolutely WRONG information just to be out there ahead of other networks. And why not? They're not held accountable for any mistakes in the reporting. Additionally, the "journalists" (media personalities) inject their own opinions and agendas into the stories, spinning them whatever way they see fit.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-05-2013 03:32 PM                       In reply to Sean, I'm quite certain there are lawyers all over the place trying to put cases together. This is one of the many wonderful aspects of the society we live in, sarcasm is intentional. But this had nothing specific to do with the mass murder that took place there, does it? So, since this is the first time this has happened in our industry, it would seem we would want to see what we could do better so it does not happen again. If instead the stadium seating had collapsed and killed or mangled a few patrons, there would be a review of design and construction practices and a solution would result and changes would be made to prevent this happening again; in part because lawyers are involved. So, is this good or bad? It can be both. Life is not simple even though we try to make it so. I predict at the end of all this, lawsuits will be filed and settled and one of the outcomes will be better designed screens and lawyers will have been a part of it. But then what do I know?  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-05-2013 04:06 PM                     Legal catch? If a family member accept the free tickets, does that imply that the matter is settled?  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 01-06-2013 01:48 PM                        I agree completely that the industry needs to learn from this incident. There are some very inexpensive and unobtrusive ways that might have mitigated some of this horrible event. I think exit door alarms are a good idea, I think regular testing of "shut down" relays is a good idea. Maybe even installing a key switch at the podium, managers kiosk, or box office that when activated trips the same relay the fire alarm trips to shut down all the machines and raise all house lights. Better training of ushers and stricter "theatre check" procedures is something that has not only safety benefits but service benefits also. What I think is not fair is blaming or villainizing the theatre chain for such an unprecedented tragedy. I know that people who have lost their loved ones in such a horrific way are never going to be the same. I would guess they are experiencing many different emotions including anger and wanting something quantifiable to blame. It is a lot easier to accept that bad things happen because the exit doors were like this or the staff did this wrong than it is to say that an average college kId with severe problems snapped and RANDOMLY killed these people. Humans do not like random. They like absolute, tangible things. We want to believe that avoiding stadium theaters, or avoiding carmike theaters will keep us safe but it is not the case. I wish it were then it would be easy to avoid tragedy. It angers me when greedy people take advantage of people in a fragile emotional state for their own gain like a lawyer using a victims family members anger and blaming stages of grief to convince them to seek a pay day from an innocent third party. As an aside: this makes me think about all the times people refused to evacuate the theaters I worked at during fire alarms. I wonder if people will realize now that their life is more important than a ten dollar movie ticket?  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-06-2013 03:08 PM                        I am starting to lose the little respect I had for Cinemark. While from a business standpoint, I understand keeping the location open (20 year leases and all) - but to bring even more attention to the tragedy that happened there was a mistake. The saddest part of their latest "Marketing Idea" - was that it probably took a group of people to come up with it. Which one of those people told the rest of the group - "We shouldn't do this". They need to fix their problems from the inside. Remember - this is the same company that let a dead guy sit in a bathroom stall for 5 days not too many months before the tragic gun incident. These corporations need to try and figure out how to go back and run a theatre location properly. Too bad they employ and promote individuals who do not possess the basic common sense.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 01-07-2013 12:53 AM                     It's easy to say what should or should not be done in a situation like this when it's not your company and it's not your money on the proverbial table.  |  IP: Logged Mike Spaeth Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1129 From: Marietta, GA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-07-2013 07:48 AM                        Dennis...Cinemark isn't exploiting the tragedy. They privately sent out invitations to the family members. No media circus. No press release announcing they'd invited them. The family members got the media involved. Look at me! I'm offended!  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-07-2013 10:23 AM                        It doesn't matter whether it was a private thing or done publicly. We all know about it - so much for that.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-08-2013 12:25 AM                        quote: Edward Havens It's easy to say what should or should not be done in a situation like this when it's not your company and it's not your money on the proverbial table. True, but this shouldn't be about money. You may be referring to others who wish to have the theater razed. I definitely agree with keeping it open and honestly, as awful as this will sound, adds to the history of the building. History should not be forgotten. But like I said in an earlier post, this shouldn't be about this particular building. I'm quite sure Cinemark could well afford lifetime passes and concessions for all in that auditorium. But should there be a mega-press event for the theater re-opening? Yeah, probably not. In fact I'd probably open without announcing anything. Press comes by and asks "when did you re-open???" "Several days ago and all is fine". Takes the edge off.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 01-08-2013 03:35 PM                     quote: Dennis Benjamin It doesn't matter whether it was a private thing or done publicly. We all know about it - so much for that. It does matter when you're framing this action as being a public marketing method.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 01-08-2013 06:18 PM                     GONE, too sarcastic for this topic.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.