Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: digital conversion gone bad

This is topic digital conversion gone bad in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=002008

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-26-2014, 10:33 AM:

Streator Illinois, a two screen small town theatre owned by a film company employee in LA. The people running the theatre in partnership with him worked very hard and raised $130,000 for the conversion, with the building owner aware of the efforts. Once the public donated the huge amount and the new equipment was installed for transformers, the owner apparently became upset, supposedly because the 35mm projectors were moved.

His partners claim he made huge demands, resulting in a very public battle. Last night it seems the owner of the theatre locked out his partners and boarded the building up listing it for sale with the projectors.

The building is basically falling apart. I think he has it way over-priced and really doubt it will sell. The people of the community have been screwed in my opinion.

https://www.facebook.com/majestic.streator?fref=ts

http://www.mywebtimes.com/news/local/majestic-theater-listed-for-sale/article_1c6ad2ae-e6ba-5e14-8f7c-3636d7cb09a7.html

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-26-2014, 11:55 AM:

I always found this concept of begging laymen to pay for a digital conversion to be quite iffy...in fact IMHO, it borders on the unethically if not the illegal. These theatres are most often independents, art houses or non-commercial operations and the like, and they went begging for money from loyal patrons which as far as I can tell, turns out to be monies handed over as an unencumbered, outright gift, no strings attached other than the assumption that the digital equipement will go in an keep the beloved theatre in operation. This usually is surrounded my lots of media coverage and it's all packaged in this great cumbiah-we-are-all-one-big-family concept. I guess it now takes a village to run a movie theatre. In the end, though, it's just a bunch of people forking over lots of money and basically giving the exhibitor some very expensive equipment with not much more hope and a prayer that what they think will happen, i.e., digital will keep the theatre running, actually will.

But what it if doesn't? What if either by unforeseen circumstances as in this case, or by nefarious shenanigans the theatre shutters its doors anyway? What protects those poor schlubs who forked over $90,000? Is there ever any contractual, legal commitments made in these drives to the donors?

Me, I would want a hellofalot more that a "thank you" and an "I'll the best he can to keep the theatre running" from the exhibitor. I would want some legal guarantees that the recipient of this donation has obligations and contingency plans in place in case, for whatever reason, he CAN'T keep the theatre running. What happens to that digital equipment? Without legal restrictions, what's to prevent an unscrupulous owner from deciding to retire a month later and disappear, money in hand? Or even he legitimately arrive at this type of situation described here where the best laid plans are thwarted?

If this guy can't keep the theatre operating, is he going to sell the new digital equipment and return the money to the donors?

Nah, I would have to think long and hard before I'd make a donation for a digital conversion, even if I was a huge fan of the theatre. It's too easy for these things that start off with the best intentions to easily morph into a pyramid or a ponzi scheme. Can anyone say, Max Bialystock?!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 12:26 PM:

I've read the story, but I don't really get the relationship between the owner of the building and those who were running it.

Do they lease it from the owner? Or is there some kind of revenue sharing contract? Or is the whole issue that there is no such thing as a clearly formulated agreement at all?

Because, whenever my landlord would shut me out of a building I would rent from him, in violation of whatever contract is in place, I would get the police on his ass...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-26-2014, 01:43 PM:

Whether or not the theater operator is running his theater properly and honestly, it is in my humble opinion flat out stupid to have the general public donate the money to fund a d-cinema system purchase.

If a movie theater operator cannot afford to buy a digital projection system in the first place what is he going to do in another 7-10 years when that digital projector needs to be replaced? Ask for another public fund-raising drive?
[Roll Eyes]

Every business has operational costs it has to fold into a budget. D-cinema very obviously has raised the cost of doing business for movie theaters. Those who don't have enough of a profit margin to handle upgrading computer based equipment with a very limited life span are just going to be stuck going out of business.

Some of these fund-raising drive conversions from 35mm to digital may have bought a few extra years of life for some movie theaters. Unfortunately digital is not designed to last anywhere near as long as film. No one is going to get 20-30 years of service out of a d-cinema projector, like one could get with a film-based projector. Without some major changes in how they do business they'll be right back in the same dire situation just a few years later.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-26-2014, 01:57 PM:

quote: Kyle Mitchell
I think he has it way over-priced and really doubt it will sell.

He wants $267,000 for the theatre.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-26-2014, 02:10 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Do they lease it from the owner? Or is there some kind of revenue sharing contract? Or is the whole issue that there is no such thing as a clearly formulated agreement at all?

Because, whenever my landlord would shut me out of a building I would rent from him, in violation of whatever contract is in place, I would get the police on his ass...

That was my thought as well. Wouldn't there be some kind of legally binding contract in place to protect the operators from an owner locking them out?

Let's hope for their sake that it wasn't an oral agreement with a handshake to seal the deal, because then they'll be lucky if they are able to get those projectors back, much less the business intact.

I, too, never cared for the idea of a for-profit business begging for funds. Whether it's a movie theater looking for a projector or a dance center asking for donations for a bake sale to fund their operations, it's not cool to expect or even ask people to donate to a for-profit business.

If you don't have what it takes to be for-profit, then become a non-profit and all the things that entails.

In regards to the Majestic in Streator, I'm confused as to whether it's actually open or not? They have showtimes on their site, we have them on our site, but their gofundme page shows that the theater is boarded up as of 11 hours ago:

http://www.gofundme.com/6e0h4w

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-26-2014, 03:18 PM:

The relevant part of the article is this:

quote:
"It was about 24 hours from the time the news hit the press that my business partner and the owner of the building, Tim Burke, began screaming and yelling at me," she wrote on the "Majestic Streator" Facebook page Saturday. "He told me to get out of the building and take those (bad word) digital projectors with me."

In 16 hours, Troccoli's Facebook post had 81 comments, 91 likes and 258 shares, almost all of them in support of her.

Troccoli told The Times she made Burke aware she was raising money to go digital.

"He said, 'I did not think you would last this long. I have been waiting for you to quit, so I could shutter the place. I did not think you could raise the money.' ..." Troccoli said.

So if you can believe this person, the guy was just raking in whatever profits there were, or (if there were no profits) using it as a tax writeoff, figuring the theater would go out of business eventually and then he could sell the building for some other use, but they did TOO well and surprised him.

The idea that he "got mad" when they moved the 35mm projectors is just dumb, unless the guy has a collection of old movies he wants to run someday. Even then it's still kind of dumb.

I agree with all the sentiments that it's not good business to ask for donations to fund a conversion. I sincerely hope that by the time we're ready to upgrade again, prices will have gone down somewhat. Not holding my breath on that one, but companies like Barco, Christie, NEC, Dolby, GDC etc etc are going to want to keep selling equipment so maybe they'll come up with some kind of creative solutions for upgrades.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-26-2014, 03:32 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
unless the guy has a collection of old movies

Well he does Mike.
The projector that was moved was a Norelco AAII. The theatre was well equipped for film.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-26-2014, 05:51 PM:

Well in that case they should have consulted with him before digitizing. WOuld be nice to have his side of the story -- too bad he wasn't available for comment for the article.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 05:52 PM:

It's totally unclear to me if they just moved or REmoved his (?) DP70/Norelco AA11. If you'll be primarily playing digital content, it makes perfect sense to give that projector your prime position inside the booth.

Then again, nothing else in this story seems to make sense...

quote:
In regards to the Majestic in Streator, I'm confused as to whether it's actually open or not? They have showtimes on their site, we have them on our site, but their gofundme page shows that the theater is boarded up as of 11 hours ago:

So, that would be the second fundraiser for this theater in just a few months...

quote: Scott Jentsch
I, too, never cared for the idea of a for-profit business begging for funds.

I also don't understand the idea of DONATING to a for-profit business. If you raise funds, you should at least give shares in your business in return. I would never donate money to a for-profit business without actually investing in it, yet it seems there are sufficient people that are willing to do so... Maybe we're all in the wrong business [Wink]

quote: Mike Blakesley
I agree with all the sentiments that it's not good business to ask for donations to fund a conversion. I sincerely hope that by the time we're ready to upgrade again, prices will have gone down somewhat. Not holding my breath on that one, but companies like Barco, Christie, NEC, Dolby, GDC etc etc are going to want to keep selling equipment so maybe they'll come up with some kind of creative solutions for upgrades.

I'm afraid you can kiss the hope for selective upgrades on stuff like projectors goodbye. While there are a few models that can, for example, be upgraded from 2K to 4K, those prices are so outrageous, you're better off buying a new projector. The same goes for stuff like servers. This is just basic PC server hardware, which get old very fast. The upgrade path generally is: Buy a new one. Of course, with a little bit of planning and insight in the technology at hand, you can still spread out investments.

On the bright side although, prices have come down already and like with almost all tech products, I'm pretty sure they will continue to do so. Especially if you don't need the absolute bleeding edge in current technology.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-26-2014, 06:12 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, that would be the second fundraiser for this theater in just a few months...

Most likely for the legal fees, since there is a lock out.

quote: Mike Blakesley
WOuld be nice to have his side of the story -- too bad he wasn't available for comment for the article.

I would like to get his story too. I known him for over 22 years and worked with him for about 8 of them. He is a film person and does not like people messing with his booth set-ups without him being present.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-26-2014, 06:15 PM:

Why shouldn't people decide freely wether to donate money to any matter they want, be it profit, non-profit or anything in-between?

Strange to believe that in this case they raised the money with the owner not being aware of it or keeping his feet still until the final goal was reached.

- Carsten

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 06:18 PM:

quote: Bill Gabel
Most likely for the legal fees, since there is a lock out.

According to the actual fundraiser (which was also already mentioned by Scott a few posts earlier), it's the full $267k for the theater.

This page also contains a bit more "background information", from the perspective of the current, or rather former operators.

quote: Carsten Kurz
Why shouldn't people decide freely wether to donate money to any matter they want, be it profit, non-profit or anything in-between?

Nobody is claiming that they shouldn't be able to do so or am I missing something?*
Personally, I think it's awkward to donate to a for-profit business. But unless we enact a global law against stupidity, people are still free to sink their money in almost any hole of their pleasing [Wink]

.

* It seems I was totally missing Frank's post. Although he's only claiming that it borders on the illegal [Razz]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-26-2014, 06:26 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Strange to believe that in this case they raised the money with the owner not being aware of it

According to the other website and person's story. He knew about it but did not think they could reach it. They had a person that gave a lot of money for the cause and they hit their goal.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 06:29 PM:

quote: Bill Gabel
According to the other website and person's story. He knew about it but did not think they could reach it. They had a person that gave a lot of money for the cause.

Yeah, I've read that too. But that still sounds a little bit backward to me. If it's true, it doesn't really make him look good, does it?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-26-2014, 06:36 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
in fact IMHO, it borders on the unethically if not the illegal.

In what way would asking for free-will donations to be deemed illegal?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-26-2014, 06:44 PM:

Something doesn't sit right with this whole thing...Like Bill I have known the owner for many years and this is uncharacteristic of him....

The 35mm projectors ARE (were?) his personal property..they came from his home screening room. I was there back in 1997/98 on the original install when he bought the building. (Kyle, remember our road trip, lol?)

The owner has always, to my knowledge, wanted the theatre to do well so this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 06:45 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
In what way would asking for free-will donations to be deemed illegal?

The way I read Frank's post is that he doesn't claim it to be illegal as such, but it borders on the illegal in many cases because of the actual execution. In most cases, there's probably no real due diligence of what happens with the money.

I suppose when you ask money for X, but end up spending it on Y and Z instead, you're actually committing some form of fraud.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-26-2014, 07:03 PM:

quote: Bill Gabel
He is a film person and does not like people messing with his booth set-ups without him being present.

That's what makes this story so weird....if he cared about the film equipment that much and didn't want the changeover, why didn't he step in before they started fundraising for digital? Or, you'd think he'd have made her sign some sort of document agreeing to keep the 35mm equipment in place, or upgrade to certain specifications, etc.

Very strange.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 08-26-2014, 08:06 PM:

They aren't donating for nothing. They get free popcorn and soda. Okay, got free popcorn and soda. At inflated prices. At least they didn't have to sit through 3D movies to pay for the conversion.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-27-2014, 03:21 AM:

What got me thinking... they already raised about $130k for the digital conversion. The "former partners" are now trying to raise the full $267k, to buy it from the owner. Those $267k are the exact amount the owner supposedly wants.

But, aren't those donations just income or at least just revenue? And since they're are a for-PROFIT business, don't they need to pay taxes on this income or revenue..?

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-27-2014, 06:53 AM:

These two quotes are a prime example of why I hate digital. Yes, I hate it. You throw a technology and process out the door (into the scrap yard - literally), one that basically lasted for a hundred years (film)- and go out and invest in a technology that won't last 5 to ten years. Where was the common sense in that?

quote: Mike Blakesley
I sincerely hope that by the time we're ready to upgrade again, prices will have gone down somewhat.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm afraid you can kiss the hope for selective upgrades on stuff like projectors goodbye. While there are a few models that can, for example, be upgraded from 2K to 4K, those prices are so outrageous, you're better off buying a new projector. The same goes for stuff like servers. This is just basic PC server hardware, which get old very fast. The upgrade path generally is: Buy a new one. Of course, with a little bit of planning and insight in the technology at hand, you can still spread out investments.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-27-2014, 09:56 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
You throw a technology and process out the door (into the scrap yard - literally), one that basically lasted for a hundred years (film)- and go out and invest in a technology that won't last 5 to ten years. Where was the common sense in that?

Digital made perfect sense for movie distributors. They're saving hundreds of thousands of dollars with each movie release not having to make thousands of 35mm film prints. Portable hard discs are a lot less expensive to buy & ship. Those hard drives are re-usable.

Those guys opened a can of worms on the production and archiving side (digital isn't turning out to be such a cost saving measure there). But that was only something they found out years later. Now they're trying to keep Kodak from totally going out of business so they'll at least be able to keep archiving movies on film prints that last a hell of a lot longer than any digital media.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I also don't understand the idea of DONATING to a for-profit business. If you raise funds, you should at least give shares in your business in return. I would never donate money to a for-profit business without actually investing in it, yet it seems there are sufficient people that are willing to do so... Maybe we're all in the wrong business

The model of grabbing huge sums of money from the public to fund business expenses has worked for organizations like the National Football League. Get the taxpayers to pony up much of the cost for a new $1 billion+ stadium with all its ultra expensive luxury sky boxes. Don't give those taxpayers shit in terms of discounts for tickets and other items. Hell, rape their wallets for the parking fees.

quote: Carsten Kurz
Why shouldn't people decide freely wether to donate money to any matter they want, be it profit, non-profit or anything in-between?

It could be worse. Americans are pissing hundreds of billions of dollars away every year into casinos and not getting anything out of that. Still, I think it's pretty strange for a for-profit, private business to be asking for public donations.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I suppose when you ask money for X, but end up spending it on Y and Z instead, you're actually committing some form of fraud.

That would only be if some kind of contract was involved, like what a governmental entity would have to do with tax dollars or what an registered non profit charity did with its donations. From what it sounds like here donors were just giving money to a private business operator based on verbal "good faith" it would be spent properly. There's no guarantees there.

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-27-2014, 12:18 PM:

I totally agree that a for profit business should not be asking for donations, but they did. When I owned the business in The Majestic (2007-2009), I remember him feeling like the community owed him something and suggesting that I ask for donations, but I wouldn't. I think it would have been very difficult for him not to know that the money was being begged for, there was a huge donation thermometer on the door of his building for years and the efforts were clearly on his website. He was also partners in the Will Rogers in Charleston, Il, where they were also asking for public handouts.

I met Tim in 1979 in a theatre in Phoenix, we were friends for a long time but that doesn't really matter because I don't think that friendship or loyalty mean a damn thing to him.

Yes Tony, I remember that road trip. You made a few trips there over the years didn't you? Did he pay you for your work? I made almost yearly trips there for about ten years to work on his building for a week at a time. I never got paid for any of that work. I looked at it like I was being loyal to a friend and helping him be successful. I know different now.

"Uncharacteristic", seriously Tony? You didn't ever witness any of the Tim Burke freak out sessions? Weren't you at the Majestic when he yelled and screamed degrading things at his father with a group of people in the lobby, before locking the old man in the basement?

I bet there are others on here who could tell of some about his freak outs, but here is a good one: It was 1984 we were installing 70mm at the LaReina in Sherman Oaks for Mann, needed a Dolby card, there was one not being used at the Fox Hollywood. He went to pick it up and started freaking out yelling at his union brother. The manager came into the booth to see what the commotion was just as Tim started throwing things and got hit in the head with a shelf. I believe the manager was carted away in an ambulance and assault charges were filed. He was banned from all Mann Theatres and lost his coveted gig at the Bruin in Westwood.

In 2007, Tim and his "partner" Katie practically begged me and my family to move across country to open the Majestic. We spent about three months there working very hard on the theatre because it was not in any condition to be a first run venue.

To get me out of the place, he used our love of the building against us, telling us that some big money people from Pennsylvania gave him a huge deposit that he couldn't turn down and they were going to take care of the major problems with the building and make it a sustainable business.

My last conversation with him five years ago had him saying that he would send me some cash for the theatre furnishings that I was leaving in there. After I left peacefully like he wanted, knowing that I have always made my living in the theatre industry, he proceeded to tell other theatre owners and film company sales representatives that I had abandon and thrashed his theatre. Then he and his "partner" opened the place themselves.

20th Century Fox is one of the companies who mandated this digital conversion at the expense of theatre owners. Yes, I believe the Majestic is one of the many theatres that the extra huge expense of new equipment every few years would just put out of business, but the fact of the matter is that the Streator movie-goers wanting the theatre to not be closed opened their pocket books to pick up the tab so that Fox could save on print costs.

For their employee to freak out because the "(bad word) digital proctors" were in his building and then just deny them access to the new equipment seems very wrong to me.

What's the matter, doesn't Fox pay their employees enough, so they have to screw over the small community movie-goers to try to get ahead in life? Does Hollywood just not give a shit about movie-goers?

These type of people really degrade the theatre industry in my opinion.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-27-2014, 02:10 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The model of grabbing huge sums of money from the public to fund business expenses has worked for organizations like the National Football League.

Bobby, the problem with your example is the NFL is a non-profit organization. Which is a much bigger problem (and scam) than we are discussing here.

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-28-2014, 10:31 AM:

Dear Congressman Kinzinger,

I believe that a 20th Century Fox employee has stolen about $130,000.00 in donations from Streator.

As you should already know that media conglomerate and others have mandated the very expensive conversion to digital projection in theatres to save them huge money not having to produce 35mm prints, as has been done for over a hundred years. The huge cost of the conversion was pushed on to theatre owners, who in turn were forced to turn the cost over to the movie-goers with higher ticket prices, which also results in more film rental for the studio since it is based on a percentage of ticket price. Now that some studios are not releasing their biggest movies on 35mm, there are many small town theatres like the Majestic in Streator that would be forced out of business. I have been reading about businesses that have been in families for generations serving smaller communities being shuttered by this. This alone is wrong in my opinion and never should have been allowed to happen.

Tim Burke, the owner of the Majestic Theatre building in Streator, I believe is also an employee of 20th Century Fox, living in the Los Angeles area, and president of Stone Soup Entertainment, an Illinois for-profit corporation that was operating the Majestic. For years, the corporation has been soliciting the public for donations to fund the conversion and "Save the Majestic". In June they announced they had collected $130,000.00, enough for the conversion. Monday night the theatre was boarded up with a for sale sign placed on it. Tuesday's Times Newspaper reported that the Majestic was closed indefinitely, by Tim Burke. I called Fox to ask for answers, but they have not return my calls.

Movie-goers in Streator opened the wallets to fund Hollywood's huge savings and now just months later can not enjoy movies. Certainly that can't seem right to you, can it?

I am confident that there has to be something that you can do to correct this. I know that the studios have strong lobbying efforts in Washington. Please help the movie-goers of Streator and the rest of the country. I am sending a copy of this letter to media outlets and posting it on social media because I feel strongly that this really needs to be corrected quickly.

Thank You,
Kyle Mitchell

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 08-28-2014, 04:29 PM:

quote: Kyle Mitchell
I totally agree that a for profit business should not be asking for donations...

In our district there used to be a single screen 60 seat for-profit cinema (35mm and DVD) housed in a building owned by the (municipal) Council, ie by the community, and the operator paid rent to the Council. The earthquakes caused the building to be closed, and thus the community lost it's local cinema. Whilst the building was closed (reopening 2015) the digital revolution happened.

The rebuilt building now has a pair of about 40 seat cinemas, with the plan being that all the outfitting costs (including full digital installation, but not the concession stand etc) are paid for by the Council, with the intention of recoveing the investment in the rental charged to the operator.

But... no operator (there was an open tender) could make the sums work, and thus there was a serious possibility of no cinema. Thus the Council suggested that to get an operator to sign up would need the community to stump up $3 on the rates for every household. Submissions to the council on the issue (and the letters page of the local rag) indicated that the people were willing to pay this to get a cinema back.

We'll have to see how it works out in practice, but it appears that the community is getting a cinema! And it is a private operator effectively being partially funded by (enforced) donations. But its not just a case of a handshake deal and money chaning hands, there is full disclosure and much paperwork.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-28-2014, 05:02 PM:

Wow, with only 40-seats per screen it's hard to see how it could ever gross enough to bring in the big new movies. If it was full EVERY night, if it had 2 shows a night at $7 a ticket, that'd be $3920 in a week on each screen, and you know there are going to be plenty of nights with only a few people in the crowd.

This is one time where a reserved seat scenario might be a good idea!

Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 08-28-2014, 05:22 PM:

If he knew about the fund-raising efforts they'll need to file suit against him but they may be able to get an injunction barring him from shuttering and/or attempting to sell the theater. Concept is called promissory estoppel. Many people donated towards a digital conversion in expectation that the theater would remain open. The alternative remedy is monetary damages but given the unique situation a court might order that he keep the place open and operate it.

A representative/congressman likely won't be able to do much as this is a civil matter. If he's locked the doors? File suit.

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-29-2014, 06:26 PM:

She gained access to the building, took the digital equipment, popper, candy, etc.

It sounds like there are big legal battles in store. Police Department says it's a civil matter.

I see no way the place will ever re-open. I am waiting to hear back from his realtor who told me already that the equipment was included to see how much the price will be reduced to now that Tim doesn't have the donated equipment to include in his sale.

His non-digital, boarded up, falling apart building in a small declining market isn't even worth the amount of his mortgage, in my opinion.

There is not and probably not likely ever be motion picture entertainment for the people of Streator, even after $130,000 was donated under the ruse that there would be.

Greedy people ruin the industry that some of us have worked our entire lives in, truly care about, and really enjoy when it is done right. What a shame!

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-29-2014, 08:04 PM:

http://www.mywebtimes.com/news/local/equipment-digital-projectors-missing-from-majestic/article_42f31e1e-dbce-5b83-afd2-17a9d818f8a3.html

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-29-2014, 08:40 PM:

quote: Kyle Mitchell
It sounds like there are big legal battles in store. Police Department says it's a civil matter.

If this was some kind of partnership and not a somewhat conventional lease, then this indeed is a civil matter. Those things can drag on for ages and in this case, I don't see any potential winners, besides a bunch of lawyers.

But with a bunch of digital projectors, servers, some concessions and concession machines in storage, it shouldn't be too expensive to get a limited operation running again at another location I guess?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-29-2014, 10:51 PM:

Rumor has it that pretty much the same thing has just happened with the theater owned by Quentin Tarantino in LA, the New Beverly. He bought it several years ago when rising rents almost forced it out of business, and allowed its former owner to carry on running the place as a leaseholder for a peppercorn rent. As I understand it, he (the leaseholder) bought a digital projector earlier this year, basically because he had no choice if he ever wanted to show newly released or re-released movies. All this was happening at around the time Tarantino delivered his infamous anti-digital rant at Cannes.

Anyway, at the start of this week, pretty much everyone in these parts was talking about how Tarantino had just terminated the poor guy's lease, thrown him out and told him to take his infernal machine (I doubt if that was the precise phrase he used, but you get the idea) with him. Apparently the theater is to close for the whole of September for a major refurbishment, which will include a major upgrade of the 35/70 film installation, and when the place reopens it will be proudly film only.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-29-2014, 11:08 PM:

Hollywood should start an "adopt-a-cinema" program for movie stars. A star could adopt a small theater that needs a boost, put a bundle of money in it to upgrade it to modern standards, let the local staff continue to run it, and have a nice little tax writeoff every year.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-29-2014, 11:32 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
and told him to take his infernal machine

Word on the street must be wrong, the New Beverly is showing 35m, DCP 2K and DCP 4K all this week.

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-30-2014, 12:49 AM:

Tim certainly isn't any Tarantino. The difference is one can afford to do that, the other can't. Poor Tim, had to sit out in LA and read in the newspaper about someone else saving his theatre. I think it is nothing more than an insecure person with a bad temper and a huge ego just having it totally shattered, that is depriving my entire community of having the ability to enjoy motion picture entertainment, despite the donation of $130,000.

Maybe some stars would would be willing to provide some individual support, but "Hollywood", as in the media conglomerates, does not care at all about what the movie-goers end up with.

They don't honor the consumer choice and book movies based on the merits of individual theatres as the 1948 Supreme Court decision known as the Paramount Decrees says they should. By booking films based on how many locations the theatre owner has in that region, many independent theatres do not have a chance at free enterprise and being able to exist even when they clearly provide a better service and can perform better. I have absolutely experienced it for myself. This practice clearly limits competitive choice and its benefits to the movie-goer, but Hollywood doesn't care and DOJ is asleep at the wheel on regulating what they do(like the mortgage industry regulation a few years ago).

I keep hearing about independent theatres that made the huge investment for digital to save the studios big money on releases and they are still limiting them to let the chains in nearby markets skim the cream off the product and leave the independents starving.

They just hand the product to the chains with no regard for what the movie-goers end up with.

I had a two screen, sloped floor, 25 year old theatre competing against a chain 11 screen, stadium seated, less than ten year old complex that had advertised that it was THX for five years but never had one auditorium certified ever. How's that for cheating the movie-goers and degrading the industry?

My theatre was not only voted best all five years I was there in the newspaper's Best of competition, but by movie-goers with their wallets at the box office.

Of course I was never allowed day and date to show direct comparisons of which theatre could perform better, but my theatre easily provided the highest average percentage of national gross.

However, Hollywood would not provide anywhere near the product that providing those numbers deserved. I was typically given bottom of the barrel product and thrown a mediocre bone once in a while. The chain was allowed to book some product and keep pushing opening dates back and sometimes never opening it, just to keep me from having it and push me further down the food chain. At times, the chain was allowed to open new films that I had offered a full screen of course, on a split schedule. They were allowed to drop films making over 4K on a weekend to bring in an art film to keep me from being able to have it. The list goes on.

Basically, I provided a better movie-going experience than the chain, but Hollywood just did not care and let themn drive me out of the market. They convinced the mall that I was in with the planned expansion that I could not fill a bigger complex with product since I couldn't provide an adequate share of product for my two screens. The chain made a deal with the mall for their new complex, but then backed out. Seven years later the movie-goers there still have no consumer choice or competitive benefits.

Hollywood does not believe in free enterprise for the theatre industry and works against many independents. This digital conversion seems to have the added benefit for them of cleansing the industry of many independent theatres.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-30-2014, 01:21 AM:

This is an extremely depressing thread. What a sad and interesting story about such a beautiful theater.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-30-2014, 04:05 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Anyway, at the start of this week, pretty much everyone in these parts was talking about how Tarantino had just terminated the poor guy's lease, thrown him out and told him to take his infernal machine (I doubt if that was the precise phrase he used, but you get the idea) with him.

I'm not saying those rumors are false, but while I could find the article that they bought a digital projector, I couldn't find anything about Tarantino cancelling the lease of the previous owner. Also, like Terry put it, the theater still has digital shows on their program.

quote: Kyle Mitchell
Hollywood does not believe in free enterprise for the theatre industry and works against many independents. This digital conversion seems to have the added benefit for them of cleansing the industry of many independent theatres.

To be fair, it seems that an internal cat-fight has "cleansed" this theater and not Hollywood.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-30-2014, 12:04 PM:

Nothing on the program beyond tomorrow, though, which does not contradict the rumor that they're closing for refurbishment for the whole of September. Presumably they'd have to play out the DCP bookings they'd made at the time the decision was made to go film only in any case.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-30-2014, 05:34 PM:

I didn't check beyond tomorrow [Wink]

. Seems like their schedule covers exactly one month, so they could just be lazy or not sure about what to play yet...

The Twitter account is still active though, published just a few hours ago:

quote:
A 35mm show print of THE WIZARD (1989) screens tonight at midnight for its 25th anniversary w/ star Luke Edwards in person!

Roughly the same was also posted to Facebook. Nowhere a single notice about a pending refurbishment.

So, until something official seeps trough, it's still just rumors I guess? [Wink]

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-31-2014, 02:50 PM:

Here is a letter from Katie's attorney to Tim that gives some details of what is going on. There has been no word in the press from Tim despite local reporter's attempts. Maybe he should get a real attorney instead of taking legal advice from a flooring installer.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/mywebtimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/0a/10af7e8c-3001-11e4-a56f-0017a43b2370/5401581a59631.pdf.pdf

Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 08-31-2014, 03:22 PM:

Kyle,

So let me get this straight, Tim became upset with Katie after the digital installation? The letter you posted in dated is dated July 8th. What happened between the digital install and July to warrant sending that type of letter?

It seems to me that there's a whole lot more going on here than either party has mentioned. The boarded up theater and the for sale sign are the result of that letter, not a film projector being moved.

I also doubt that anyone runs a theater for that long and only gets paid $300.

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-31-2014, 04:28 PM:

When I ran the theatre, I bought a commercial building across the street. After Tim burned me, I watched the Rentrak grosses and the lack of cars out front or people at the box office(visible from my bedroom window), I stopped worrying a long time ago about Tim every seeing any profits from the place.

When you screw over someone who the community watched working so hard on the place as I did, I don't think that business really ever recovers.

Knowing the expenses of the place, I was confident that Katie who owns a realty office in Ottawa(20min away) was using home sales commissions to support the business for years.

I would see that she would drive over here in bad weather and just end up with two cars there or the marquee shut of by 7:30 with her heading home.

As far as what happened after the install, a newspaper article came out that touted Katie and Bob Endress saving his Majestic Theatre. His huge ego was just crushed and his terrible temper and insecurities took over, that is my feeling.

Here are some photos of the Majestic on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=900359003325972&set=pcb.900359833325889&type=1&theater

Last night was cruise night here in Streator.

The first photos are around and at cruise night when I ran the place. I worked very hard working on that marquee for years. I ran all new circuits up from the box office and repaired/replaced bad sockets and neon. I sanded, bondoed, replaced sections of sheet metal and did a lot of repainting on it, but never did get to finish.

The cruisers would each get their photos taken in front of the grand marquee. The Hollywood Nights show that you see advertised for after cruise night was a big hit. It was a benefit show that allowed me to donate over $1000 to the Streator Downtown Beautification Fund. We took every opportunity that we could to give back to our community instead of soliciting donations for a for-profit business and then trying to siphon the value out of it, to take to LA.

The other pictures are of the protests there after he boarded it up. I'm glad that his cronies(the kids of the flooring contractor that I'm pretty sure he is taking legal advice from) turned on the marquee to taunt the protesters. It gives you a chance to see what the AJESTIC looked like after of few years of Tim at the helm.

Last night was great cruise night, one of the better ones. Tens of thousands of people in our downtown for it. I didn't break out my propane old fashioned popcorn cart this year, because I have been busy putting together a theatre in Kentucky, but I sold a few hundred light up swords, wands, etc in front of my son's store on the bottom floor of my building.

It was completely dark on that end of the street. That dark Majestic tower sticking up from the front of the building looked like Tim just flipping off the entire community.

People like him ruin our industry in my opinion.

Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 08-31-2014, 04:47 PM:

I have been saying for a few years that the next round of theater closures will be larger than what has happened. Many of these small operators barely had the money if they did, to convert. You can only go to the public so many times for funding. The public has no idea that digital equipment has such a sort life span in comparison to film.

In regards to the Majestic, it sounds like Katie and Tim needed to better communicate and reach an agreement before digital.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-31-2014, 05:04 PM:

It is

- not true that digital cinema projection equipment prices stay the same for the life-span of the current equipment

- not true that an equipment installation of 80.000US$ needs to be renewed completely for the same initial price after the life-span of the equipment. Amps may fail and will be repaired or replaced. A cinema processor will have to be repaired or upgraded, or replaced. Same for projector or server, cabling, screen, etc.

But not all gear will have to be replaced at the same time and not at the same equipment or labor cost of the initial installation. There will also be a larger market for used equipment than there is now.

- Carsten

Posted by Kyle Mitchell (Member # 8059) on 08-31-2014, 06:17 PM:

Either way, the life expectancy is so short comparably and the expense so high, that it is putting mainly just independent theatres out of business now and I think many of them, just to save Hollywood money.

I keep hearing about lease packages becoming available to take over equipment from theatres that are failing because of the added expense.

In the Majestic's case, there were absolutely the extenuating circumstances of an unreasonable building owner.

I realized that the link I posted was to just one of the pictures in the album. Randy Hollister is a local avid moviegoer who has followed what has happened there over the years. He is one of the ones who Tim, in my opinion stole donations from.

Here is the link to his post with the album of photos, I think.
https://www.facebook.com/randall.hollister/posts/900359833325889

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-31-2014, 08:30 PM:

I hate this, I've had this situation in my thoughts and really hope something can be done to successfully resolve it all. Things get so ugly with multiple parties involved, especially if any party is greedy. Anyone that could handle 3 years of skimpy running conditions without being paid clearly cares more about the business and isn't that greedy party.

Here's to hoping that beautiful theater doesn't sit empty for long.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2014, 09:14 PM:

Streator is a town of over 13,000 people. I don't really understand why the theater is doing this poorly:

quote: Kyle Mitchell
Knowing the expenses of the place, I was confident that Katie who owns a realty office in Ottawa(20min away) was using home sales commissions to support the business for years.

I would see that she would drive over here in bad weather and just end up with two cars there or the marquee shut of by 7:30 with her heading home.

We only have one screen here in this town of 1,700, and just under 9,000 in our huge county, and this theater has paid its own bills and supported major upgrades (including digital) for over 80 years. We virtually NEVER have "nobody show up" on a given night, even though we get some pretty horrific weather. Sometimes we only have two or four or ten, but we always have people.

Makes you wonder if the place was really a dump inside, or being run poorly or had major presentation problems that made people give up on it.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-01-2014, 12:02 AM:

quote: Kyle Mitchell
Yes Tony, I remember that road trip. You made a few trips there over the years didn't you? Did he pay you for your work? I made almost yearly trips there for about ten years to work on his building for a week at a time. I never got paid for any of that work. I looked at it like I was being loyal to a friend and helping him be successful. I know different now.

Yeah I was called to go out there a few times but my schedule back then was busy and it never happened. From what you said I am glad it didn't as I couldn't afford to work gratis...but you are right, Tim always promised but rarely if ever delivered.

And if I recall he also never made good on the medical bills from the November mishap on the roof. (The one and only trip I did agree to make after the famous road trip, our 2k+ miles, a blown tire and a little off-road excursion 3-day marathon of fun and farts, lol.) Just got the barely anything settlement from his insurance company.

He was a friend when he needed you for something, but the reverse was often that when I needed something, there was no favor returned.

quote: Kyle Mitchell
"Uncharacteristic", seriously Tony? You didn't ever witness any of the Tim Burke freak out sessions? Weren't you at the Majestic when he yelled and screamed degrading things at his father with a group of people in the lobby, before locking the old man in the basement?

Candidly, until you brought it up, I had forgotten (or maybe the better term would be repressed) the incident with his father. It was a very ugly scene for sure. I had seen flashes of Tim's temper before but that was the worst I had personally been witness to. When I was saying uncharacteristic I was mainly referring to how he would (generally, in my experience anyways) be obsessive about projection and how the equipment was set up...though he also could do some real doosies when it came to spitballing things together. I do remember how pissed he would get when I jokingly called the theatre the "magpie"....yet he had some choice names for the place himself.

quote: Kyle Mitchell
I bet there are others on here who could tell of some about his freak outs, but here is a good one: It was 1984 we were installing 70mm at the LaReina in Sherman Oaks for Mann, needed a Dolby card, there was one not being used at the Fox Hollywood. He went to pick it up and started freaking out yelling at his union brother. The manager came into the booth to see what the commotion was just as Tim started throwing things and got hit in the head with a shelf. I believe the manager was carted away in an ambulance and assault charges were filed. He was banned from all Mann Theatres and lost his coveted gig at the Bruin in Westwood.

I do remember that incident as well.

This whole thing literally makes me sick..like you (but to a much lesser degree) I put in a good amount of effort to try and help the Majestic succeed, also in the belief that I was helping out a friend in a great endeavor.

Sadly, the community and all who worked so hard on the Majestic are the real losers in this, and all because of one out of control owner..who I once thought was a friend.

On a lighter note, since this thread desperately needs some humor.... do you remember on that first trip, when Tim was trying to get the marquee chaser going, he dropped it into the metal can shoring it out in a fantastic display of fireworks and tripped breakers? And refused to shut it down to fix?

This whole thing is just the beginning of what promises to be a long and ugly battle. [Frown]

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-01-2014, 02:35 AM:

quote: Travis Cape
I also doubt that anyone runs a theater for that long and only gets paid $300.

If you read the different articles, posts in this discussion, you'll see that this was only a part time job for them. They probably have an income that fills their daily needs due to other activities.

It probably went along the lines of: Them trying to make the theater business work, investing some of their own money and a whole bunch of their time in the hopes of later acquiring the business entirely. If there was anything on paper, it probably was vague to begin with.

The relationship with the owner went sour, maybe even before the digital install was completed and something that came along recently was probably what triggered the last straw breaking. If we are to believe the things we've read here, the owner is not the easiest guy to work with. Whenever such a complex, not clear cut relationship goes south, there's often nothing to be done.
Even if you put everything down on paper, if it goes wrong this way, it's of no use. Lawyers can drag this kind of conflicts out in court for years, but the underlying business won't survive it anyway.

The best solution would obviously be a reconciliation or at least a coming to terms without lawyers. It's probably best to part ways in the end. At least I wouldn't dare to try to setup a new business relationship this way.

So the best solution would probably for the owner to sell the building to the former operators at a reasonable price or let them take over his mortgage and pay him a bonus. That way the public that funded the digital transition would also be getting their cinema back.

quote:
Streator is a town of over 13,000 people. I don't really understand why the theater is doing this poorly:

I also don't get it. They don't have any local competition. With the digital transition already being paid for, a mortgage that seems all but unworkable, this place should just work?

Unless this place really is a dump, or people in Streator collectively hate going to the movies while still ponying up $100K+ to save it...

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-18-2015, 04:52 PM:

Kyle, any updates to this sorry situation?