Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: LOEWS / CINEPLEX BANKRUPT & SOLD!!!

This is topic LOEWS / CINEPLEX BANKRUPT & SOLD!!! in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001937

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-16-2001, 09:03 PM:

In today's Orange County Register (So Cal)
It is headlined on page 5 business section that Loews / Cineplex has filed Bankruptcy
Thursday and simaltaniously was offered a buyout by a group of investors led by Onex Corp. of Canada! also named as investors are Oaktree Capitol Management LLC and Pacific Capitol Group Inc. (Both of LA Cal.) Loews,
effective today actually closed the 675 screens that were operating week to week for the last month. (Including 20 screens I used to service in Boise ID) A side note...Oaktree is the investment group working with Philip Anschutz on his buyout of Regal & Edwards!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-17-2001, 01:29 PM:

The interesting thing about these closures of the Loews / Cinepelx houses is what will happen to the equipment & furnishings? If I remember right they are owned or levied by CCFC (Coca Cola Finance Co) there may be a whole pile of late model Simplex stuff available soon!!!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-17-2001, 05:10 PM:

Well its about time they go bye-bye. I can't remember a Low's/Cineplex theater that was very nice. They really screwed up McClurg Court Theater in Chicago big time. It used to be a nice theater till they chopped it up.
I can guarantee you that they will not be missed by anyone.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-18-2001, 12:13 AM:

>>I can guarantee you that they will not be missed by anyone<<

...except maybe those folks who were employed to operate those 675 screens.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-18-2001, 01:17 AM:

<<I can't remember a Low's/Cineplex theater that was very nice.>>

Actually, there is a loews near my parents' house here in spring, tx (which I previosly mentioned in another post) that is really nice for being biult in 1984.
It is still pretty decent today.

If loews was able to and would spend the money to upgrade their sound systems (one house in digital, 5 in stereo, 4 in mono) and redo their seats (very uncomfortable and non-stadium of course) it would be and excellent place.

But when Cinemark opened the Tinseltown in the Woodlands, their business dropped drastically.
They were the only theatre in town that summer that didnt have a huge line for independence day.

I'd still like to go in one day and ask if
I could take pictures for the site.

If I had the money and there was a market for independent and foreign films in a northern suburb of houston, that would be a place I'd love to upgrade ant turn into an arthouse.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-19-2001, 07:27 AM:

Not another one! If this keeps up, Philip Anschutz is going end up owning half the movie theaters in the US. And it's pretty clear what his plan is -- convert them all to the crappiest, cheapest digital projectors he can find, transmit the movie data over his Qwest network, and show tons of advertising to cover the cost. This is going to suck, suck, suck.

------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.

Posted by Christopher K. Williams (Member # 418) on 02-19-2001, 02:37 PM:

Does anybody know which theaters in which states are closing, or what percentage of Loew's screens 675 is? Just curious...

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-19-2001, 02:47 PM:

I wouldn't be too worried about Anschutz (or anyone else) making theaters crappy. Not only are many of them already poorly made, (small, dimly-lit shoeboxes) it seems that anyone who owns more than 300-400 screens just can't seem to make any money.

Name a chain that's over 15 years old, that that has always run an acceptable operation, with over 300 screens.

Besides, if the public accepts increased ads, then it is the right thing to do, I guess. Not wild about it myself, but I don't pay the bills.

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 02-19-2001, 03:21 PM:

Christopher,

Over in the ground level forum, I posted a press release annoucing the closings which included a list of cineplex/loews theatres slated for closure.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-19-2001, 10:37 PM:

John Walsh said:
Name a chain that's over 15 years old, that that has always run an acceptable operation, with over 300 screens.

Well, your standard of what is acceptable is no doubt different from mine, but how about Century? Of course, I can't really say whether they have always done a good job -- I've only been attending their theaters for the past 3 years, but so far I like what I see. And they show no advertising other than previews before the movies.

Besides, I should have made it more clear in my original post that it's the conversion to digital that I'm worried about. I honestly wouldn't mind if digital is done right, but based on Anschutz's track record in other businesses (just do a web search for "consumer opinion" in regards to Qwest), I doubt that he will do it right. Those theaters he owns will be permanently stuck with the crummiest, lowest-resolution digital projectors money can buy. I just know it.

What's going to make this even more unbearable is that the press will undoubtedly cheer him on. They will keep referring to this as a "revolution", because hey, anything "digital" is automatically better than anything else! The press will also repeatedly talk about how film is a "bad" and "old" technology that has all these problems like scratches, dirt, etc. -- the usual worst-case scenario arguments. No mention whatsoever will be made of the kind of high-quality, problem-free film presentations that we all know are possible. And no mention will be made of 70mm, either, because it's been a few years since that was popular, and after all, any technology that didn't see widespread use in the last 24 hours, doesn't need to be reported on.

In short, what I'm worried about is that he will set the bar for movie presentation quality even lower than it is now, while the media sits back and cheerleads. It's depressing and disheartening, but at this point it sounds like that's what's going to happen. Sad.
------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-19-2001, 10:58 PM:

Aaron;

Your points are well-taken, but (this push for digital) is happening in several places. Anschutz didn't start it, and he's no where near the only one (although he does also own technology to move it along.) And, with this big shake-out in the exhibition industry, some one was going to buy some theaters... better that, then they close and people their jobs.

I've seen some really, *really* good video projection. In some places (smaller screens) it would be good enough to replace 35mm. I've seen some very bad 35mm presentations, so video is not evil by itself.. it's how it's used.

I tend to agree that the theaters are going down hill, but after projecting for 25 years, I don't know wheather they really have, or I'm just an old fart..

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-19-2001, 11:12 PM:

Aaron - Marcus Corporation has been very successful for at least 40 years.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-19-2001, 11:54 PM:

Paul: I was quoting John above; sorry, I should have made that clearer. I edited my post and added the text "John Walsh said:" to make it more clear.

John: I agree it's better that someone buy the theaters rather than for them to simply close and put people out of work. I'm just lamenting the fact that it has to be this guy.

I understand that the push for digital is coming from various places (mainly from people who stand to financially benefit from it), but Anschutz is the first person in a position to really make it happen on a largre scale. And based on this article, it sounds like he's really hell-bent on doing so. That bothers me, because I doubt he will try to do a quality job. (Side note: the article I linked to also contains hints of the mindless "it's digital therefore it's better" blather we'll no doubt be hearing more of in the near future).

I certainly don't think video is evil. Of course it is theoretically possible for digital to match the quality of a good film presentation, even 70mm; after all, what's hitting the screen are just light patterns, they could come from anywhere, and the viewer would never know the difference. However ... the systems I've seen demonstrated (as well as the specs on upcoming systems that people are hyping up) just don't cut it. Yet people like Phil Barlow of Disney are saying that it's already "good enough". And everything I've seen and heard has led me to believe that "good enough" is all we're going to get. I find that depressing.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-20-2001, 09:14 AM:

From what I have been told this guy can be a shaddy character so I don't know if I would trust anything he says. I was told that the only reason he bought that railroad was so he could lay the fiber optic lines under the track and sell off sections to other parties and avoid government regulations. Since the government does not regulate the railroad tracks.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-20-2001, 11:14 AM:

Yeah, that article does have a lot of "yea-digital" propaganda in it. It has some 'mis-speak' in it, too. For example, I hate it when they say that 'moviegoers prefered the digital.' What people? I couldn't care less what Gladys Burger of Pottsville, PA thought about it. Let industry people judge it.

Sad thing is though, I feel the theaters brought this mess on themselves. Most chains were always looking to run cheaper and cheaper, years before this current mess. No maintaince, cut staff, cheap equipment, etc. When I first started working, I was told to remove the 75watt and higher bulbs and replace them with 40 watt to save money. What a joke. While there were several factors that lowered the exhibition indsustry, personally I think the biggest single factor was the theater owners themselves.