Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rosebud Theatre

This is topic Rosebud Theatre - Westwood NJ 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=002799

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-21-2014, 02:31 PM:

Rosebud Theatre Web Site

I don't understand how this guy can ever make a profit, or even break even. He built a 93 seat single screen storefront theatre, equipped to run consumer DVD's and Bluray's on what I assume is a consumer HD video projector. Yes, there is a market here for classic film screenings, but around here the audience generally wants theatrical quality DCP's or 35mm. I find it hard to believe that he will survive running consumer video for $10/person admission. Not only that, but he has competition in that 15 minutes north of him, the Lafayette Theatre in Suffern NY runs classic films every Saturday morning (usually DCP's), and 30 minutes south of him The Landmark Loews Jersey runs a classic film weekend every month (usually 35mm), and finally Manhattan is less than 10 miles away with multiple venues running old films, both DCP and 35mm.

Does consumer video actually draw in the theatrical environment?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-21-2014, 02:55 PM:

Well if it does work, it proves the theory that people do want to get out of the house to socialize or see a movie. I suppose it's possible they have a lot of older people in that area which might help, or that the "big theaters" in the area are hell holes.

What *I* wonder is, is he paying license fees like he's supposed to?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-21-2014, 03:01 PM:

At $10.00 admission he'd better have some pretty decent projection and sound quality. With the ridiculous minimums that distribution wants to charge for rental they probably have to charge this much just to try and break even.

Mark

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-21-2014, 03:02 PM:

Microcinemas are catching on all over. It's way too expensive to run a real arthouse cinema, but there is still a demand for going our to the movies that aren't the latest pop craze. Not sure if there is a longterm profit plan, or if they are just modern day film clubs. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-21-2014, 08:28 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Does consumer video actually draw in the theatrical environment?

If the movie is a non-Hollywood film new release film then consumer video makes no difference. People want to watch the movie. I know a number of successful independents that show movies on blu-ray, they are non-Hollywood films of course.

I highly doubt this theatre will last long, they really need to be showing new release independent films.

Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 05-21-2014, 08:42 PM:

I sure hope it works for them. I would love to go there. Unfortunately, I think something like this will be well received for a short time, then drop off.

A theater I work with runs a classic most Saturday mornings. They do ok, but to have more showings, the audience would spread out.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-27-2014, 05:19 PM:

I think something like this could be successful, if done right and in a supportive market.

However, the photos on their Facebook page show a room that seems very deep with seats on each side of a center aisle, with a screen that doesn't look any bigger than 6-8 feet. If they're going to show older Academy format movies, the projected image is going to be somewhere between 4.5' and 6' wide. That puts the max distance from the screen to be about 13 feet. My guess is that lands at about row #3.

It might just be the photography, but it looks very shoebox-like, and personally, I would not pay $10 to see a movie that is available on home video in that environment.

For that kind of money, I would want something with a more ideal seating arrangement and a larger screen. That configuration begs for something larger than 10 feet, probably closer to 15 feet minimum.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 05-27-2014, 05:43 PM:

It's not the photography, it really is a ridiculous set up. What a shame.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-27-2014, 05:48 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
What *I* wonder is, is he paying license fees like he's supposed to?

I was wondering the same, because if he would be doing that, getting the actual DCPs wouldn't be that hard. Although looking at the pictures, there doesn't seem to be any DCI compliant equipment anywhere near that venue [Wink]

.

Also, knowing about the fees that studios are charging even for limited shows of repertoire content, I'm curious how he's making it work. Maybe he has found a loophole somehow, somewhere?

Back in my college days we sometimes rented a local cinema for a few hours, we didn't sell tickets but just asked everybody a fair share for the rental of the venue. The show itself was labeled a "private show", so we could essentially show what we wanted under the local interpretation of "fair use", as long as we got hold of the print (which wasn't always easy). I'm sure that, if you would ask any given studio, they would never agree with our interpretation of the laws and regulations and I'm also pretty sure you won't ever make a sustainable business out of it, as they will shut you down rather quickly.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-27-2014, 05:49 PM:

Wow, Scott. Thanks for the link.

That is the smallest screen that I have seen charging admission.

I guess people in New York are use to small spaces.

I also guess they cannot charge a premium for middle of the row seating!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2014, 07:21 PM:

The Facebook page has a LINK to a newspaper article that says the screen is 100 inches (8'4"). I'll bet that's diagonal, what does that work out to in width?

The article says he also reached an "agreement" with the local first-run cinema that he wouldn't show any movies less than 10 years old. The cinema's attorney "threatened to file a legal objection," it says.

I would bet a few bucks that he's not paying any licensing fees. He says in that article that he just picks the movie titles out off the top of his head.

He also had to promise not to have more than 100 seats or more than one screen. If I was him I would rearrange the seats to put one aisle down one side, rather than that middle aisle.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-27-2014, 07:43 PM:

If that's the case he'll probably end up getting sued by the movie companies.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 05-27-2014, 08:07 PM:

Did you see the cashier set-up? Popcorn already in bags, no warmer.

$10 for tickets but all concessions are $1.50. At least something is a good deal.

I agree with Mike B about the aisle. We took over a theater that had the center aisle. When we changed the seats we got rid of the center aisle.

Why were theaters built with center aisles anyway?

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 05-27-2014, 08:33 PM:

Perhaps it is a fire regulation.

We have one here that requires no seat to be more than 6 seats from an isle. Therefore there are 13 seats in a row with an aisle at each side.

If you remove the center aisle, you could have 7 seats from the wall, an aisle then 13 seats in the center and an aisle with 7 more seats to the wall. These are the maximum number of seats with this 2 configuration.

The only advantage the center aisle presents to the audience is that there are no seats against the walls with this three aisle plot.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-27-2014, 09:10 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
Why were theaters built with center aisles anyway?

If a theatre is old enough (not the one we are discussing), one reason for a center aisle was for segregation when there was no balcony. Blacks on one side, Whites on the other. Segregation did some very weird things.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2014, 10:25 PM:

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
If you remove the center aisle, you could have 7 seats from the wall, an aisle then 13 seats in the center and an aisle with 7 more seats to the wall. These are the maximum number of seats with this 2 configuration.

That's the same layout we used to have, except fewer seats: We had 4/10/4. When we put in new seats in '02 we went to the continental seating -- partly for the sound advantages but also to increase the aisle width. Previously the aisles were only 3' wide.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-28-2014, 10:52 AM:

quote: Mike Frese
Why were theaters built with center aisles anyway?

Most that were built in my area were tunnel theatres, one centre aisle would get you more seats that were farther from the screen (closer to the back) and more seats overall in your theatre. Tunnel theaters were the worst.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 05-30-2014, 11:19 AM:

Now, having been interviewed many times for news paper articles myself, I realize that journalists often paraphrase a quote...but it really sounds like this guy is just playing content from his home DVD/BD collection without ponying up the appropriate licensing fees.

I say this mainly because immediately starting up double features where you are probably paying $250 or $300 guarantees for EACH film...just seems unlikely that you could make any money doing what he is doing.

All the other micro-cinemas I've seen like that are paired with something else. A restaurant, coffee shop, wine bar, etc.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-30-2014, 11:43 AM:

I have a bigger screen at home...and I live in an apartment!

The idea is there, but the execution is poor. This could be much better if they tried.

AJG

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-30-2014, 12:21 PM:

> but it really sounds like this guy is just playing content from his home DVD/BD collection without ponying up the appropriate licensing fees.

When I first posted this, it did not occur to me that this might be the case. Westwood NJ is an middle class commuter suburb of New York City. The rent for any storefront in this thriving downtown is rather pricey, I didn't think he could break even let alone make a profit. I hope he is properly licensing everything he shows, otherwise sooner or later someone will turn him in.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-30-2014, 01:37 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The Facebook page has a LINK to a newspaper article that says the screen is 100 inches (8'4"). I'll bet that's diagonal, what does that work out to in width?

Ugh, that works out to just over 73" wide by 41" high.

I've often dreamed about doing a small theater in a hotel/airport/etc., but that isn't how I would do it.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-30-2014, 02:00 PM:

And imagine if they show scope...

And, where the hell are the speakers??

AJG

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-30-2014, 02:06 PM:

This seems to have some things in common with the place that I'm involved with. 68 seat single seater within the town hall building, the space was part of the former public library before a new one was built on land behind. Opened in the late '80s and operated by the council until they closed it in April 2011 due to financial cutbacks. originally open seven days a week, but closed on Sundays for about ten years.

A campaign was started to get it re-opened, it looked like the council may have been able to find an operator to take over this, and other spaces within the clocktower complex but due to various changes the other spaces were required for other purposes, and unsurprisingly no commercial operator is likely to want to run just a single 68 seat auditorium. The campaign, which has over 1000 members decided to try to run it themselves. There were a lot of problems on the way, but they eventually managed to negotiate a deal with the council whereby they pay a small amount to hire the cinema, normally for two shows each Thursday. The campaign provides four unpaid staff for each screening, two stewards, one box office person and one projectionist. The bar is staffed and operated by the people who run the cafe elsewhere in the building.

The first public screening was on the 27th March and since then we have operated every Thursday, and a handful of other days for special events, including screening some digital rushes for a film company who were working elsewhere in the building in April. The auditorium is used from time to time by the council for other purposes, meetings, training sessions, the odd poetry reading etc., and is available for hire by other organisations.

Tickets are 7.50 pounds full price and 6 pounds for concessions. Several films have been sold out, and I think the worst We have had is about one third full.

Most films are on proper digital cinema and we typically pay about 35% with a minimum of 100 pounds. The last accounts I saw, about three weeks ago, show a small loss on only one film, with all others at least breaking even.

Two films have been shown from Blu-Ray via a Film-Bank licence because we were not able to obtain them as a DCP and one other because the DCP arrived very late, the KDM even later, too late for the first screening, and when it did arrive was invalid. The first film had not yet been released, and no DCP existed for it; it was a special event run on a laptop from a file supplied to us by the director. It had only previously been screened at a couple of festivals.

The Kinoton FP-30s are still installed and in working order, and we hope to run occasional special shows on 35 mm soon. There is also a 16 mm Hortson which has been in store elsewhere in the building since the digital was installed, but which is believed to still be in working order.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 05-30-2014, 02:33 PM:

Maybe this isn't the most idealistic setup for a motion picture theatre, but considering how few theatres of any kind there are left devoted to showing older titles and how few customers a theatre like this is likely to get, maybe a little understanding and compassion could be in order.

I always say "Put your money where your mouth is." If you think you could do something better, do it.

But yeah, this guy hopefully is getting all the correct rights to show these titles.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2014, 03:46 PM:

It looks like one of our F-T friends is doing a similar thing in his theater, except he's letting people bring their own DVDs in to be shown "privately" for a flat fee. From what I understand, you can't do that either.

It is kind of amazing that I could invite a couple dozen people over to my house to watch a video in my living room, but if I take that same Blu-Ray down to the theatre and play it for the exact same people (or even just for myself), I'm committing a crime.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-30-2014, 04:16 PM:

Showing a film just to yourself in a theatre is an interesting one. I'm really not sure where you would stand with that one.

Someone was surprised when I pointed out that running a private screening for council staff in the week before the cinema reopening required a licence. They thought that because it was not open to the public and there was to be no admission charge they could just go ahead and screen it from a Blu-Ray.

What are the arrangements for these children's birthday parties, including a film screening, which some cinemas do?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2014, 05:56 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Showing a film just to yourself in a theatre is an interesting one. I'm really not sure where you would stand with that one.

I don't know about in other countries but in the U.S. at least, the copyright notice very specifically says that videos are allowed to be viewed "in homes" only. And that any other use, even use for non-commercial purposes, is a violation.

Not that I think the Disney people would waste time prosecuting me if they found out I watched Frozen from a Blu-Ray in the theatre with my wife, but then again you never know.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-30-2014, 06:34 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know about in other countries but in the U.S. at least, the copyright notice very specifically says that videos are allowed to be viewed "in homes" only.

Is that actually enforcable, though? The manufacturer can print whatever it wants on the label, but that does not mean that the statement can be enforced.

The "public performance" concept _is_ protected by copyright, so any screening of a non-PD title that is open to the public would need to be licensed. The birthday-party rental thing is sort of a grey area that would probably require an experienced lawyer to sort out. Obviously, it would be safest to license the screening, but there is certainly an argument to be made that renting a theatre to show a movie to one's family and friends is not a "public performance."

As for the theatre discussed in this thread--I agree with the "good idea, bad implementation" comments. Anyone doing repertory programming in 2014 who isn't doing it right (original formats, properly presented, etc.) is doing a disservice to the industry as a whole. I could understand if this guy were doing a free "movies in the park" thing or something like that, but I fail to see how showing DVDs in a small venue with a tiny screen is a sustainable business model if he is licensing the screenings properly. Or maybe he is just a rich guy who is doing it for fun. To his credit, the web site indicates that the screenings are on DVD/BR, not film.