Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Wallowing in nostalgia

This is topic Wallowing in nostalgia in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001264

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 09-21-2002, 01:07 PM:

Several on the forums seem to have a yearning for nostalgia. By the tone of their posts, "All megaplexes, bad; all single-screen thaters, good."

Robert E. Allen said in a different thread: "If you look closely almost all the major circuits are just coming out of bankruptsy because they've taken their brand of overscreened ambiance into too many areas while a number of single screen "opulent" houses (sans stadium seating) have been restored with great success."

The nearest single-screen to me closed 3 years ago. It got flooded in a hurricane and no longer shows movies. That huge single was a dump -- the place was crumbling, the owners barely put any money into upkeep and part of the main floor had to be roped off. It didn't help that the theater was in a town full of bluenoses. The only reason that single stayed around as long as it did was because it got Saving Private Ryan when General Cinema refused to show that film on its original release. Reading came in and opened a 12-screen stadium theater in a nearby town for Star Wars Episode 1. That modern multiplex marked the beginning of the end for that old single. The hurricane did the rest.

In a nearby city there's an old single-screen that's now a performing arts center. This PAC used to be one of the venues for a "film festival" that's overhyped by the local press. (I use quotation marks since the outfit running the "film festival" runs mostly 2nd-run arthouse product.) There was one major problem: The "film festival" was drawing 300 people a show in a hall that seats 1,800. That's not gonna pay the bills for a venue that's dependent on foundation and corporate money. OUT!

There are 7 single-screen theaters left in Northern New Jersey. One single is usually a subrun; it's been playing My Big Fat Greek Wedding since before that picture went mainstream. Three other singles are arthouses; two of those arthouses are a mile apart and have to split product. Two more singles are dependent on family fare and do poorly if they get stuck with adult pictures. The seventh single now only shows movies part-time.

In a multiplex/megaplex world, single-screen theaters are nostalgia. The press loves to wallow in nostalgia -- it provides reams of hype, it's cheap and easy to produce, it doesn't offend the rich and powerful. Nostalgia may be great for the press but it doesn't mean a thing to the general public. The Rolling Stones are another example.

In my part of the country, stadium theaters and megaplexes have grown to the point where I don't have to patronize anything else. Over the summer I was able to see Sunshine State at the UA Union Square, Lovely & Amazing at the AMC Empire, and Tadpole at the Regal Barn Plaza. Last week I saw One Hour Photo at the AMC Clifton Commons. All of those theaters are stadium and are well-maintained. (Special shout-out to Moviefone.com for including the Barn Plaza listing on Tadpole.)

The public is voting with its pocketbook -- for proof, peep the list of top engagements that Nielsen EDI and Box Office Mojo post every week.

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 09-21-2002, 02:31 PM:

There is one serious flaw in your argument, the Nielson EDI engagement lists box office gross by theatre, not by screen or show. No, no single screen theatre is ever going to gross $100,000 in a weekend.. but they are also only showing the movie a few times/day in smaller markets. The listings are for theatres that are probably showing that particular movie on several screens, 5 or more times per day in each screen.. in towns of several hundred thousand. Also, singles are usually in smaller towns with less draw, and if they are well run their market saturation is probably just as good or better than the multi's; just with less of a population base to draw from. I would be amazed to see any multiplex that is better run with better presentation and atmosphere than a well managed and maintained single in a small to medium market.

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com

Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 09-21-2002, 03:39 PM:

Well stated, Adam. Bravo!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-21-2002, 04:04 PM:

I'm not quite sure what the original poster's point is.

Is the issue that some single-screen houses are poorly maintained and that the multiplexes in the same market are capable of better presentation quality? If so, then that statement applies to a particular market and isn't representative of single-screen theatres in general.

I like single-screen theatres and have enjoyed working in several and patronizing many. Unlike the current generation of gigaplexes, which all look and feel alike, singles tend to have "character," which doesn't necessarily improve the film presentation quality, but which enhances the entertainment experience. Some are very well maintained and do good business, while others are struggling to survive (and, sadly, presentation often suffers in this situation).

From a purely selfish point of view, I prefer working in single screen houses, as they tend to have interesting architectural features and also often have interesting pieces of history (particularly old show schedules, newspapers, film, and equipment) that I find interesting. Call me masochistic, but I prefer working with older booth equipment as long as it has been well maintained; the newer equipment is great (I'm running Kinotons this weekend....), but I get more satisfaction by putting on a top-quality show with equipment that is fifty years old than I do with the latest and greatest stuff.

In any case, there are plenty of markets where the single-screen concept still works. Small towns and even mid-sized cities seem to work best. The Byrd Theatre in Richmond, VA. often does great business with second-run product. The Uptown in DC and the Senator in Baltimore are "the" places to see top first-run titles. Providence, RI has three single-screen art houses (I've been helping out at the Columbus lately).

I have nothing personal against multiplexes and I agree that many of the newer theatres are well equipped for great film presentation (and, to be fair, many single-screen houses aren't), but I just prefer the older theatres, myself, and am happy that I have a choice in many cases.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 09-21-2002, 04:14 PM:

Only where equal access to product is given (day and date release) is given to both multi's and single's can you compare apples to oranges.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-21-2002, 05:19 PM:

QUOTE:

quote:
No, no single screen theatre is ever going to gross $100,000 in a weekend

Not today, probably, but to put things in perspective, the Roxie Theatre in NYC pulled in approximately $350,000 during it's first week of "The Robe" in 1953. And during the blockbuster 70's and 80's, may first-run single screens in LA and NYC could bring in over $100,000 for a weekend. Of course movies play in far more screens today.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-21-2002, 06:51 PM:

Hmm... [Whips out the Windows calculator]

Assumptions: A weekend is defined as Fri, Sat, and Sun; the theater grosses $100K (admissions only); the average ticket price is $5; 5 shows per day = 15 shows for the weekend.

$100K divided by 15 shows = $6,667 per show.
$6,667 divided by average ticket price of $5 = 1333 admissions per show.

It could happen.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-21-2002, 07:07 PM:

I should point out the Roxie theatre probably charged 2.00 max for the Robe in 1953 (advanced prices). But the theatre had 6,000 seats. And that was for the week. Don't know the weekend breakdown.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-22-2002, 01:24 AM:

Actually, it is certainly possible for a single screen theatre to gross $100,000 on a weekend.

As I recall, the Uptown topped $1,000,000 on its run of SW:EP1 on it's 12 week run with the first weekend quite possibly topping 100,000 (cuz it wasn't towards the end). ID:4 ran around the clock so it might have as well.

Generally, the Uptown will outgross just about any theatre on the length of the run on a given title. That is, looking at the total gross for a title.

The Uptown being a single screen theatre in Washington DC.

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 09-22-2002, 10:01 PM:

Just a small technical correction for historical accuracy. The theatre that you have referred to in New York City was the ROXY, not the ROXIE as the one in Los Angles was.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-23-2002, 07:27 AM:

I was unaware that there were any single screen full time movie theatres left in northern New Jersey. Just curious, which ones are they?

/Mitchell

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 09-23-2002, 02:58 PM:

The vast majority of multiplexes are located in large metro areas where the corporate brass spend their time trying to out-tech and out-screen other corporate owned multiplexes (which is exactly what drove them into bankruptsy) instead of having their hand on the pulse of the community to learn what the populace wants to have in the way of entertainment and have all but ignored the deluge of complaints about high prices at the box office and concession stand, unfriendly staff, poor screen performance and dirty facilities (see this month's boxoffice magazine "Mailroom" column) as they use the "herd the cattle" technique of customer relations.

There IS life outside the big city. I'm in the process of planning a single screener in our small community which I hope will be the flagship for a fleet of single screeners (or hardtop/drive-in combos) to serve small and rural America which is being totally ignored by the corporate big boys (who continue in the self-destructive battle to out-screen each other in already overscreened metro areas)

A well run multiplex can be a benefit to a city. Notice I said "well run". In order to do that the corporate brass is going to have to get off their plush chairs and get out into the communities they serve and get to know those communities and make certain their local staff is connected to those communities. This is apparently something they were never taught in whatever marketing or business management schools they attended.

Bob
The Old Showman

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2002, 05:29 PM:

I got the general tone from Charles' post that he doesn't care if single screen theaters bite the dust and are replaced with cookie-cutter duplicated multiplex sites.

Overall, I disagree with the statement. I've visited a good number of single screen theaters and twins that just blew away most stadium seated "megaplexes". In Dallas, even when the AMC Grand 24 was still new and the UA Galaxy had just opened, I still much preferred to go to the traditional seated Northpark 1-2 to watch any movie. I have yet to visit a modern stadium seated theater that could compare at all to the quality of the Northpark.

A few years ago, when the stadium seated theater seemed like a new concept and people were really excited about the then-new digital surround formats, the quality was pretty good in places like the UA Galaxy. In the past few years it really has gone to shit.

It seems like I get more and more disappointed with just about every stadium seated theater I visit now. I really hate those newer AMC sites with all the surround speakers mounted up in the ceiling. The sound systems are typically so poorly tuned in these places that it seems like you have only two tracks of sound. One for the screen and one for over your head. Real hollow sound and next to no bass. Total shit. Oh, and did I mention the DIM IMAGES? On those big screens, we're talking about movies by Braille. But the attitude is 35mm is good enough for a giant screen. Who cares about 70mm?

70mm is another thing that single screen, traditional seated theaters could deliver. The modern stadium seated theaters have ignored the large format.

If anyone wants to say I am "wallowing in nostalgia" they really don't get the point. I'm just interested in having the job done right. Film Done Right. If the circuits aren't interested in delivering that, more people will wallow in the technology of their DVD players instead of visiting a commercial theater. And that sure wouldn't be good.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 09-23-2002, 06:50 PM:

In my nearest big city, Aarhus, the place calling itself the biggest THX house in Denmark shows a heavily trapeze-formed THX on-screen logo.
Thats what multiplexes stand for, -and thats what THX stands for.
Horray for nostalgia and good, old days !

/p.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-23-2002, 07:01 PM:

I doubt there's a single Film-Techer who wouldn't like to see a resurgence of 65mm origination and 70mm presentation. But the way the business seems to work today, it just isn't going to happen. Of course, if someone can present a business plan that shows from a P&L perspective how 70mm can still be viable...

In an age where moderately successful films have runs measured in terms of a few weeks (mostly as a marketing tool for later home video release), and exhibitors shuffle films between screens on a daily basis, and everyone's already complaining about high ticket prices, 70mm is just not going to come back.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-23-2002, 07:01 PM:

I own a single screen theatre and I just love "wallowing in nostalgia."

One of my favorite parts of the year has long been getting the NATO Encyclopedia of Exhibition and turning to the article about Michael Patrick (of Carmike) in which he said "I don't think it's possible to make money in a single screen theatre these days," and then getting a good chuckle out of that statement. I've apparently been doing the impossible here for nearly 24 years, and the theatre also hummed along quite profitably for 49 years before I came along.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-23-2002, 07:47 PM:

But this recent trend of IMAX blowups and conversions would suggest that there is a market for a big screen, hi rez experience. If a new, big, highly anticipated film opened at every plex but people saw in the ad that 3 or 4 of them were playing it in 70mm I think a lot of people will go out of their way to see it that way just as they used to. And with 65mm origination there would be substantial and noticable improvement in image quality unlike in the blow-up era when it was mostly about sound.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2002, 10:47 PM:

I agree a market is definitely there for big screen high res shows. The unfortunate thing with these latest IMAX blowups from Super35 ("Apollo 13") and digital videotape ("Episode II"), it seems to suggest the movie studios want to use the IMAX giant screen brand name without actually spending the bucks to make a real IMAX movie.

Movie fans want super high res movies on giant screens. The trouble is we cannot seem to get the movie studios and filmmakers to deliver the product. They only want to deliver the same old thing using the giant screen logos.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-14-2003, 03:32 PM:

Whoa, I didn't expect to get flamed that badly! [Wink]

I can understand Mike's situation as Forsyth is miles away from the nearest big town.

I bump this up since I read on Cinema Treasures that the Varsity Theatre in Carbondale IL runs its last shows tonight. The Varsity opened in 1940, was twinned in 1972 and became a 3-plex in 1981. Midwest chain Kerasotes Theatres ran the Varsity along with an 8-plex in a nearby mall. A Kerasotes spokesman was blunt as to why the old theater was closing:

quote:
"Theaters of (The Varsity's) type are not the direction that movie exhibition is headed," said Tim Johnson, a spokesman for Kerasotes in Chicago. "Whenever we book a big movie at The Varsity, people would tell us they were disappointed it wasn't at the University Place 8. Consumers speak with their ticket purchases, and there are people who won't go to The Varsity."

At least there's a good trade-off: Kerasotes has built a new 8-plex in Carbondale, all stadium, all digital, opening tomorrow for The Matrix Reloaded. That means 16 screens total in Carbondale instead of 11. Also, Kerasotes plans to go more aggressive on arthouse product as Carbondale is a college town.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 05-14-2003, 07:01 PM:

The reason most single screeners fail in the metro areas is that they try to go head-to-head with the corporate big boy's multiplexes over the same limited product "Hollywood" is cranking out. There are plenty of films being produced all over the world and many independents in this country that can be booked. It would, however, require that the operators of the single screeners get off their butts and do their own promoting. This is part of what is called "showmanship", something that is generally lacking at the corporate owned mega-whatevers who seem content to let the distributors do the promoting while playing right into their hands. In other words, the distributors are, in effect, running the theatres while the corporate big boys price their tickets and concessions out of reach for many people because they can't make any money on films that are "playing everywhere".

I can run a single screener next door to a multi-plex and do so profitably.

Your views are based on what you have experienced in metro areas. It may surprise you to know there are millions of people who live in medium, small town and rural America who are either served by, or would be thrilled to be served by, single screeners. As I said in my earlier post, there is life outside the metro areas.

Posted by Robert Golding (Member # 746) on 05-14-2003, 10:19 PM:

I guess I'm lucky. I run a single screen drive in. Here in California we have very few drive in's left, especially in the valley. The last Century drive in (a 6 plex) will close before summer. That leaves me the only drive in open during the winter months and maybe 5 or 6 open during the summer months. Drive In's are a great way to make a living if you can find one. I pull my patrons from as far away as 200 miles during the summers.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2003, 01:20 AM:

What Bob said. It's all about intelligent bookings for single-screen houses. Location helps, too. I've been lucky enough to have been involved with several single-screens; some were more successful than others...those that did well were run by people who knew their audience and booked films which they knew would do well with their regular customers.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-15-2003, 06:18 AM:

2 single screen locally. One is an "intermediate" run house that runs double features and serves liquor (they have a full bar with view of the screen) and pizza from the place down the street. Other is part of a 3-theatre independent group. Both seem to be doing fairly well.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-15-2003, 08:07 AM:

The problem that most single screen theatres in major markets face is that in many cases, they are forced to hold a film for 4 weeks or more. In a mulitplex, no problem, as new films are opening as other are dying off. In a single, you have 1 or 2 good weeks, and another 2 weeks of crap.

There is a very nice single located 1/4 mile north of NJ is Suffern NY, called The Lafayette Theatre. Under it's new owners, it is kept clean, has nice presentation, and even has a working pipe organ that is played every Friday & Saturday night before the shows.

Lafayette Theatre Web Site

Posted by Jim Spohn (Member # 1547) on 05-15-2003, 03:04 PM:

At my single screen theatre in Bakersfield, we are not open to the public and only do private screenings at this time. I have overheard kids asking their parents, while walking into the auditorium, "where's the screen?" I assume that this is because most of the multi-screens don't even bother to install curtains. In our theatre after the music is faded to zero and the house lights come down to half, the grand drape opens as the house lights dim the rest of the way out. The show starts with the titles shown on the "title curtain" then that curtain opens and the movie starts on the screen. Add to this the pipe organ concert before the show and first class sound from the film, and now you have entertainment. Many of the new multi-screen theatres are too anticeptic and uninteresting to look at or experience. Our success has been from "Wallowing in Nostalgia", thats where showmanship came from. (and has possibily stayed!!).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-15-2003, 05:46 PM:

I think a single screen theater can do well with traditional Hollywood big-budget product. The big thing really depends on the sophistication of the theater.

If the GCC Northpark #1 THX house were still open in Dallas, I would still make the 200 mile drive to watch movies there. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

A single screen house must have something to offer. If it is a modest, smaller house, then yes it might be better served by booking art house product, revivals and other niche titles.

The movie theater chains are missing an opportunity in their theater design. I agree many stadium seated theaters are now just slapped together in a cookie cutter fashion. There may be more sophistication to the cookie cutter, but it is still a cookie cutter nonetheless. "Megaplex" sites that add an IMAX 3D theater are coming along the right idea. Another thing they need to add is one or two really cool, BIG, 1000+ seat auditoriums in the concept. Sony's Lincoln Square in NYC kinda has some of the concept down.

I think audiences want a sense of "ambience" or "atmosphere" in the theater when they see a highly anticipated film. I remember the feeling I would get walking into the 1000+ seat Northpark #1 in Dallas before watching shows like "Apollo 13" or "Titanic". I would think to myself, "now THIS is a real movie theater!" I think it lends itself to the enjoyment of the show. The screen is bigger, projection and sound is better and the whole experience comes off as that: an experience. Too often, the multiplexes only deliver ho-hum show quality.

To address David Stambaugh's P&L question regarding 70mm, yes I think it can be shown to be profitable. If a theater running a large capacity palace is able to show 70mm prints, it can attract bigger audiences and make up for the print cost easily.

Proportionately speaking, many 35mm prints are playing in TINY low capacity houses. The Central Mall 12 theater in my town has the majority of its screens seating under 100. A 35mm print costs what? $1500 to $3000? A DTS 70mm print sans mag striping may cost twice that (I don't know the exact figures, but I strongly doubt a 70mm DTS print would cost as much as a $15K to $20K mag coat print). Anyway, to get to the point, if a palacial high-class theater can seat 1,000+ then it should be worthy of a print that costs 2 to 3 times the price of an ordinary 35mm print.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-15-2003, 06:17 PM:

Beside the Waikiki theatres that was all closed recently, I used to enjoy going to the movies in San Francisco on a stop over during my many trips to the east and the mid west. They have all closed but I have enjoyed The Northpoint Theatre, The Alhambra, The Regency #1 and #2 and even the old Royal although it looked kind of shabby towards the end of it's life. The only surviving single screen that I think is still in operation is the Castro and the Coronet. The elegant Castro reminds me of the Hawaii Theatre of Performing Arts in Honolulu which used to belong to Consolidated Theatre and was a premiere downtown theatre with the old Princess which was torn down years ago. Gee, how I miss those huge single screen theatres with large screen and wonderful acoustics.

-Claude

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-16-2003, 12:38 AM:

Areas that have no major competition pressures from multiplexes have a far better chance of supporting single screens than in urban areas. The multiplexes can use productive screens to compensate for auditoriums that occasionally have dogs or long-term holdovers booked in. A single with a no-show represents a business that makes no income for an entire day.

Aside from that, what really kills indoor houses is the studio demand that they hang on to a film for 3 or 4 weeks. These theatres are frequently in markets that tap a show out in 2 weeks max. The theater then spreads out what profits it may have made over the first or second decent week, without the ability to bring in fresh product for its market. It's not much different than a fast-food store that only sold french fries. After awhile, you probably wouldn't go back until the place changed its menu.

There's an indoor house in a nearby town of roughly 5,000+ (county population 16,000) that has a long-established single that is competing with a recently built small twin. The single runs only one show per day, even when on the break, and is still doing relatively ok, but has been long-owned by an independent that has his properties paid for. Were someone to buy his indoor, he'd have a real tough time operating the same way the current owner does.

We have a buttload of screens in our county, almost all of them multiplexes. The only single remaining in our immediate market has had a real tough time of it, and is presently leasing to a live theatre group, in lieu of running film. There is one other single in our county that appears to be doing ok, but it has an established history as an art/independent venue.

quote:
from Mike Blakesly:
I've apparently been doing the impossible here for nearly 24 years, and the theatre also hummed along quite profitably for 49 years before I came along.

Could I buy your theatre today, pay myself whatever you're presently taking and add my payments for the theatre on top of that? If so, then you're in an enviable, and probably rare situation.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-16-2003, 03:09 AM:

the coronet will close within the next couple years; it's already a done deal, apparently. but it's a ua and shamefully runs slides and movietunes. aside from the castro, san francisco also boasts the bridge, the clay, the roxie, and the red vic, as well as several institutional screening rooms (moma, yerba buena center for the arts, sf art institute, etc.) i've never been to the bridge, but i think the castro is the only one that would qualify as a movie palace.

carl

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-16-2003, 11:18 AM:

Kerasotes quote:

quote:
"Theaters of (The Varsity's) type are not the direction that movie exhibition is headed," said Tim Johnson, a spokesman for Kerasotes in Chicago.

No one has taken into consideration that most Kerasotes twin/triple splits of old single-screen houses are hack jobs at best: across-the-middle splits of auditoriums that should never have been divided, leaving 35ft. throws on 40ft. screens, and lenses so short that vignetting and keystoning were impossible to correct. With all respect to my friend Tim Johnson, who had no control over the splits, is it any wonder why people didn't like to see movies in those locations?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-16-2003, 01:42 PM:

Hi Carl,

I have not been to the Coronet in years but I have seen a lot of 70mm pictures there including the first "STAR WAR" film during it's first run. I wanted to see it there because the Cinerama and the Kapiolani in Honolulu was only playing it in 35mm. The 35mm print was replaced with a 70mm about two months later when the Cinerama was equipped with Dolby Stereo. Although I have enjoyed the Coronet, the theatre did not appear to have any surround speakers. I have also been to the Warfield before they closed it and turned it into a performing arts theatre and the old Warner theatre that used to be San Francisco's Cinerama theatre on Market Street. There were also some other theatres on the opposit side of Market near the Warfield and the Warner that were kind of run down but nice. I cannot recall the title of the movie but I remember seeing it in 70mm in one of these theatres. Another theatre I remember visiting was the Presideo on Chestnut Street to see "SPEED". I have not been to the other theatres you had mentioned in your post because I did not know how to get to them on your bus system. I must make an effort to visit them the next time I am in the city. By the way, I have not been to the Sony Metron but I have been to two other multiplex theatres in San Francisco They were the AMC Kabuki and the UA complex across the street from the now defunct Regency theatres

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2003, 01:46 PM:

quote:
Could I buy your theatre today, pay myself whatever you're presently taking and add my payments for the theatre on top of that?

Hard to say. I still have my day job and my wife works too, so I don't have to take much out of the theatre...but it still pays for all our groceries, gas in my vehicle, insurance, my home computer and software, and most of our "fun stuff" (CDs, concerts, etc.) And we've put in a ton of upgrades over the years (new projector/lamp, seats, Soundfold, stereo, DTS, screen replacement, film cleaner w/Filmguard [Smile]

, seats again, upgraded wallcoverings, carpeting, painting, restoration of the neon marquee, popcorn machine (twice), and many, many smaller projects).

I would say you probably could. Doesn't really matter though...I ain't selling. You'd have to pry my cold dead hands off the place!

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-17-2003, 04:36 AM:

claude,

ah yes, the presidio is still open. i also forgot the metro and the vogue. i've never been to those. i believe they're all ua's, which makes me very afraid. i've been to the kabuki for the sf film festival but i also try to avoid amc's.

carl

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 05-17-2003, 10:55 AM:

We do nearly that, we are in the last couple years of payments on our theatre and still pay 4 people's wages and make continual improvements (main income comes from other businesses). Given we are not rich but I'd say it was enough to support most people. There are 20 or so screens within 60 miles in a sparcely populated rural area. But I think we are in a similar situation to drive ins b/c people will drive several hundred miles to see a movie at our place, even if the product isnt great a certain week. I do agree that the 3 to 4 week minimums keep singles below a certain point though and if there could be more creative booking strategies employed everyone would benefit (i.e. book a new movie for two weeks, send it off to the single in the next town and switch around like a multi does) this would keep fairly fresh product in everyones hands and I would think make everyone, including the distributers more money. I think the biggest thing for a single to stay alive though is for them to be different, with things like being extremely clean, awesome sound, nice seats, nice architecture, secure and well lit parking, clean lawn, big screen and so on. If their experience is better than that at the multi people WILL remember. We just finished a week of cleaning, painting, and refinishing and people DO notice when you take care of the place and they will come back.
End Of post that is to long and prob doent make sense.

www.pinestheatre.com

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-29-2003, 04:36 PM:

Adam's situation makes sense. Right now there's one in New Jersey that doesn't.

Wall Stadium is a stock car racetrack on the Jersey Shore. A bunch of New Jersey businessmen want to set up a drive-in at the racetrack and show movies when the racetrack isn't open. However, the racetrack owners never bothered to apply for a variance from the local zoning board. The drive-in group wants to open this year but the zoning board won't hear the case until mid-September. With weather as it is and summer tourists gone for the year, the drive-in may not even open.

As usual the press swallowed up the hype and nostalgia. They downplayed one important factor and omitted another:

Hours of operation. Wall Stadium would operate as a drive-in when there are no races. What day are the races? Saturday. AFAIK no studio will give you first-run product if you can't guarantee you'll be open on the biggest moviegoing day of the week.

Local competition. Clearview runs the closest theater to Wall; it's a 10-plex near Asbury Park. Loews has 4 multiplexes within 30 minutes of the drive-in.