Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When is it safe to start building theaters again?

This is topic When is it safe to start building theaters again? 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=002515

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2001, 11:02 PM:

As just about everyone in the industry with an IQ over 8 knows, it is mainly because of overbuilding that many chains have filed for bankruptcy. Many theaters have been closed by chains that avoided bankruptcy as well.

Now, a certain theatre chain (Colorado Cinemas Holdings Group Limited Liability Corporation) here in Colorado wants to start building again. The plan is to put a brand new 10 plex in the small town of Parker. This new theater will only be 6 miles from the chain's current flagship 16 plex. I guess they have already broken ground and want to have it open by October 2002. Not long ago a different theatre chain (Century) pulled out of two new 16 plexes they had under construction in Boulder and Lakewood (Lakewood doesn't have ANY movie theatres). Before that Mann Theatres couldn't find the finances to finish a new 16 plex that they were building. They tried to cut costs by putting in (very) used equipment, but it just wasn't enough. The project was abandoned. And tons of theatres in the Denver metro area have closed down or have been sold to independants wanting to run dollar movies. More closures are supposedly to come.

What's everyone's opinions on this subject? Should we take it easy for awhile or should we start back up again?

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-28-2001, 11:21 PM:

With the combination of egos and fiscal irresponsibility that permeates this business, the building is never going to stop. The major players all think they are PT Barnum and want to have The Greatest Show On Earth ....whether it makes fiscal sense or not!

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 07-28-2001, 11:34 PM:

Maybe they've gotten rid of the dogs and are done with the reorganization, are done with the legal part of the proceedings (?) and are becoming more stable? Maybe a lot of the whole reorganization thing was just to dump the losers? At any rate, at some point in every economic down turn there comes a time when people begin to get their courage back and standup and take a step forward. Maybe it's time. I've always felt that economic upheavels were generated by a state of mind. Someone said "recession" and everybody bought into it. I vote we go forward

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-28-2001, 11:40 PM:

As far as the area that I live in is concerned it is still over saturated with too many screens. This is after both Cineplex and Carmike have shuttered a number of locations. The funny thing is that Larry Miller of Jordon Commons fame is planning two more locations of which only one is really needed. He is putting in screens at the "Gateway project" and up in Park City. The Park City location is the one needed as there is little to no quality as far as film is concerned up there. This is where the Sundance Film Festival takes place and I'll never figure out how they have survived there this long.
As far as adding more screens to this are is concerned, it is EXTREMELY FOOLISH! Greater SLC is still over-screened and there is only one decent theatre here (The Villa).

What does need to be done to theatres around here is to bring up the overall quality of presentation in regards to picture and sound. Its piss poor everywhere around here. Only one decent place that a quality presentation could take place and it is under utilized and on the verge of disappearing ( www.villatheatre.com ). Other areas that must be explored and always improved on are customer satisfaction and personal service. ALL theatres in this area give their patrons absolutely nothing beyond the glitz. I have lived here for quite a while and have yet to see an usher help someone find a seat after a film starts. Man, thats the most basic personal service that can be provided in any theatre.

All in all, its time for theatre owners, and in particuluar the large chains, to go back to square one, step back and look at what is missing from seeing a film today in a multiplex. What I see missing usually is quality presentation, and customer service and satisfaction. It is also time to survey what little is left of the past. As much of the past should be preserved as is possible. Be it a Cinerama Theatre, or a local suburban single screen theatre. None of these can be replaced after they are gone and they are indeed far more important than building more multiplexes at any location at this time.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-29-2001, 01:48 AM:

I would imagine that a company could build a new theatre at just about any time, providing it's located in a market that hasn't already been subject to "saturation bombing". There are plenty of medium sized towns that don't have a really good theatre. There's bound to be one or two places left that are still ripe for the pickin's.

It's just that the time and place has to be thought out well enough in advance so the theatre will make enough money to stay afloat. There are still a couple of towns down here that could use a good theatre but so many companies have spent all their money building locations that have bombed, so they don't have the resources to build another one.

Posted by Derek Maxwell (Member # 234) on 07-29-2001, 02:39 AM:

I vote to build new Drive-ins and the hell with these megaplexes. We have enough of those and they all have poor picture quality. The Drive-ins around here are much better and more fun to go to.

------------------
http://www.drive-infilm.com

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-29-2001, 05:22 AM:

Funny how the Sacramento area's got a LOT more screens than it did 10 years ago, and most of the independent movies STILL don't get played anywhere except for the sleazy old 'art house' theater that should have been closed a long time ago. Are we really gonna need "Rush Hour II" playing on 3 screens at every place else in town?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-29-2001, 09:21 AM:

don't be too hard on the independent art house they may be the only survivors

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-29-2001, 11:48 AM:

Loews is about to open a megaplex in Elizabeth NJ at the Jersey Gardens outlet mall. The theater was to have opened last year but Loews' fiscal woes and Chapter 11 filing held it back.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-29-2001, 12:16 PM:

We are still building:

In Las Vegas:
http://www.e-vegas.net/display/article.asp?article=1216 http://www.lasvegas24hours.com/news2.asp?Region=99

In Minneapolis: http://www.mcda.org/whats_new/Newsreleases/block_e.htm

In Chicago (just opened): CLICK HERE

In California: CLICK HERE

We are quite lucky we are privately owned, and so don't have thousands of shareholders demanding immediate "knee-jerk" changes to a fairly stable business plan, just because the stock market goes up or down. We've actually had several mall owners ask us to take over theaters they own after the orginal theater people quit because of bankruptcy.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-29-2001, 01:34 PM:

Why are the chains building new theaters when they are not even taking care of the theaters they already have?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-29-2001, 01:37 PM:

Which theatre in Sac is a 'sleazy old art house'? the Tower? Crest?

Most of the new cinema properties in the Sacramento area are being built [or proposed] by Century, who doesn't seem to be suffering too badly with the bottom falling out of the megaplex boom.

Aaron

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 07-29-2001, 07:23 PM:

Yeah -- the only art theatre in Sacramento is Reading Theatre Company's TOWER theatre --- I'm told they haven't done much to keep it up.

-Scott

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2001, 07:46 PM:

Loews just opened a new 17-screen gigaplex in downtown Boston. I have no idea why. It sounds like a really bad idea, but who knows. I haven't been yet, so I can't comment on the quality of construction or presentation.

The Loews theatre follows last summer's opening of the GCC Fenway 13. Thus, in the past 12 months, the total screen count in Boston proper has gone from under twenty to over forty.

Posted by Mike Jones (Member # 522) on 07-31-2001, 11:49 AM:

I'm a manager at an independent in a very upscale suburban Detroit theatre (Uptown Entertainment). We have one location with eight screens. As it stands now, we can not fill the high demand we have. We need more screens pronto. Since our clientele is very picky and sophisticated, we are undergoing construction of a 12-screen to be completed this October/November called The Palladium 12. It is located only one block away. It is going to be THE nicest looking place in the midwest, if not the country. We'll be the only one in the midwest (correct me if I'm wrong) with a theatre with leather seats and dinner tables that our guests can dine at from a buffet while watching their movie.

Our business is not letting up whatsoever, hence the reason for our new sister theatre. I think part of it has to do with the fact that we offer a different type of product. We're not the cookie-cutter megaplex. It's just something you'd have to see. Being an independent offers the oppurtunity to change things that are pretty standard throughout the industry and be able to change policy and what not immediately with almost no red tape.

As long as your product is unique and your service is personal, people will eventually recognize it. It seems to us that every few weeks we break a record for attendence or grosses since we've been open in 1996.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2001, 12:10 PM:

Mike Jones said: "As long as your product is unique and your service is personal, people will eventually recognize it. It seems to us that every few weeks we break a record for attendence or grosses since we've been open in 1996."

I have a feeling you also are good at "Film Done Right".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 07-31-2001, 06:16 PM:

There is an interesting article in this weeks US News and World Reports. On page 54, the article goes into digital home theater projection systems. It talks about a guy in Budd Lake, NJ that put together a 8x19 foot screen digital system using a Sony Q video projector for about $3600.

It also talks about a new system by Sanyo. It's a $9000 digital projector number PLV-60T that can throw a 48 feet wide screen picture from any digital source. That right, 48 feet and this is for home use.

If all this is true and not a misprint, then theaters as we know them will be doomed.

Larry

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-01-2001, 07:06 AM:

Larry said: "It also talks about a new system by Sanyo. It's a $9000 digital projector number PLV-60T that can throw a 48 feet wide screen picture from any digital source. That right, 48 feet and this is for home use."
US News article on home theatres

While I agree that the real competition for theatres in the future will be affordable high quality home theatre systems, I would take some of the hyped claims and inflated specs with a good dose of SKEPTICISM and a grain of salt. A 20 x 48 foot image would require a pretty big house! And I doubt that $9000 will buy you a digital projector with the 11000 lumens needed to light a matte white screen of that size to even the minimum 12 footlamberts.

BTW, that Sanyo PLV-60 projector has a rated light output of only 1300 lumens, which would light that 20 x 48 foot screen to a little over 1 footlambert:
http://www.projectorpeople.com/
http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_details.cfm?part_id=1109

IMHO, the popular press (and even some of the publications that should know better) contains too much HYPE about Digital Cinema, and not enough factual information.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 08-01-2001, 03:51 PM:

I agree that 1 footlambret with a 20 x 48 foot wide screen is no where near the minimum and would not fit into any normal big house. Since brightness increases 4 times with every 1/2 reduction in screen size, a 10 x 24 foot wide screen would have 4 footlambrets and a 5 x 12 ft wide screen would be a bright 16 footlambrets. Perfect brightness for home use. Maybe even too bright.

Larry

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-01-2001, 04:24 PM:

Yes the more the light the clearer the pixels will stand out

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-01-2001, 05:45 PM:

Ha ha good point Gord! That is very true. Unfortunately most people think that being able to see the pixels would just mean that it is sharp and clear.

Posted by Mike Jones (Member # 522) on 08-02-2001, 05:37 PM:

Thanks John, I try as hard as I can to acheive rightness in "Film Done Right". But there is one drawback to working at an independent...you sometimes have to act as both booth manager and floor manager.