This is topic Theatre Chain Status in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000449
Posted by Manuel Francisco Valencia (Member # 710) on 02-14-2002, 03:35 PM:
I was just wondering how all the other chains are doing. We (Cinemark) got a brief report via email yesterday. To make it short and not to release to much information, Cinemark increased profits by a great margin and cut loses and expenses by a slight margin and with all the other theatre chains closing screens we are now the second largest as far as screens goes. 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-15-2002, 10:19 AM:
Manuel - that report we got was simply a copy of the press release. All of that information is now public.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-15-2002, 12:05 PM:
Here's the CineMark press release with 4th Quarter 2001 results:
http://www.cinemark.com/PressReleases/4qtr2001NR.htm ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-23-2002, 10:22 AM:
AMC recorded record revenue but posted a net loss for its fiscal 3rd quarter (ending 12/27/2001). According to the Kansas City Star, the disparity was mainly due to "stiff terms" on Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.Now I know why a fellow Film-Techer said "Keep selling that popcorn!"
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-23-2002, 12:52 PM:
I would say that if you report a net loss because of stiff terms on Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings then the terms are criminaly wrong.I don't know what to do about it, but it makes me mad. 
Thank God I run an Art House, where the terms are somewhat better.