quote:

---

One of the last drive-in movie theatres in the province, the Twilite in Wolseley, is faced with closing down unless it can convert to a digital projection format.

The Twilite is hoping film buffs will help out with the $100,000-plus cost to make the switch, made necessary because movies distributors will no longer be sending film prints, beginning next year.

Diane Banbury's family has run the Wolseley theatre since the 1950s.

"There's got to be somebody out there that has a love for the past and the movies and movie memorabilia," Banbury said. "If they could get some money together than maybe somebody else could say 'Well, they raised 40,000, we'll raise 40,000.'"

Banbury is seeking sponsorship money and is planning a fundraising campaign.

"We'll do all the fundraising we can," she said. "But because we are such a small community every little sportsplex, and the curling club, and everyone else all needs fundraising all the time too."

Banbury's cousin, Don Zuba, runs the theatre. His dad Stan Zuba built it in 1954.

There are only a few drive-in theatres left in Saskatchewan and many of them are only open for a very short season.

---

quote: Edward Havens

---

The Solano Drive-In, not two miles from where I am typing out this message, has had digital projection on one of their two screens for a year now. The other screen is expected to be digital by summer.

---

Apples and oranges. That drive-in is in a city 42 times larger than the one in the article. It's not surprising that a theater in a big city can afford digital while one almost in the middle of nowhere can't.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-15-2012, 11:21 AM:
 
Actually, Concord CA is 156.10 times larger than Wolseley Saskatchewan (according to the population figures on Wikipedia).

One thing that I didn't see in that article, though, is any offer to make it into a community theatre. Is it reasonable for a privately owned business (which this drive-in appears to be) to expect the public to hand over money to pay for an upgrade?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-15-2012, 12:30 PM:
 
Anyone can go begging -- it's not illegal, but is it reasonable? I certainly don't think so. They are basically asking for an outright handout without any defined parameters. If it is a viable business, why won't the bank give them a loan? If the bank won't do it, then as a part buyer of a digital projector, I'd want to know why. I would want to know what happens if the owners can't keep operating even AFTER they get a digital projector. Is it a viable business to begin with? If they are asking for $100,000 (where are they getting this price from -- shouldn't it be more like $65,000?), then there should be a proviso saying if the business goes under, that projector gets sold and the monies go back to the contributors. Or as Ian rightly asks, after Series II is no longer DCI compliant and they need to get a Series III, then what do they do? Seems that should all be defined when such a large sum of money is involved.

The owners probably don't mean it to be a scam, but in reality, it pretty much is. If the contributors don't demand some kind of assurances in case of the What Ifs, they are foolish.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-15-2012, 12:33 PM:
 
I was going by his location in Pleasant Hill, and didn't bother checking what city the drive-in is in... and apparently it's in Concord
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2012, 12:55 PM:
 
What Frank said. And what happens if they raise, say, $60k? Do the "donors" get their money back if the $100k total that the "need" is not raised?

I am sure that this place provides a valuable service to its patrons and I am sorry if the business may get to the point where it is no longer viable, but I think it looks bad for a private business to seek public assistance, especially when the expense is an ongoing one that requires periodic replacement and maintenance, rather than a one-time-only expense.

In any case, they can stay open by booking film.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-15-2012, 01:35 PM:
 
This is why film should be helped along to coexist well into the future.It may seem expensive now but when you look at it long term,small print runs are cheaper than massive digital investments over the next 20 years.For smaller towns and drive-ins at least.
Of course they are not considered important enough to save , all the big players could care less.

In fact it's part of the plan!
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 01-15-2012, 05:10 PM:
 
I don't think that your blanket statement about all DIs being unable to logistically sustain the cost of digital conversion is correct, Ian. Drive-In Theaters are individual businesses like any others. While some (perhaps even most; I don't honestly know) are undoubtedly money-burners kept alive for posterity alone, there are quite a few that are still viable businesses that make good money for their owners, management and staff. Our drive in does wonderful (albeit seasonal, due to Colorado's cold winters) business. We are a single screen with 500 car capacity and during the peak summer months, if you are not there within 20 minutes of us opening the gates, you ain't getting in. It is not uncommon for us to have a line of cars out to the highway (about 1 mile away) and we are sold out (if not oversold) on 9 out of 10 weekends. In fact, we have pondered adding not only a 2nd screen but a 2nd lot as well. The Holiday Twin DI in Fort Collins (some 10 miles away from my home) also does a ton of business and is sold out most nights as well.

That said, our drive in is the only DI that serves the entire Denver Metro area and the Holiday (in Fort Collins)serves a semi-large college city along with the fact that it is the only DI serving many other fair sized Northern Colorado towns and cities. I cannot speak for what these small town DIs do for business as I have never run one nor do I know any owners or operators of any.

From what I have seen, the drive-in is back. Weather or not this is yet another passing fad, I do not know. The drive in started with the post-war generation who loved the fact that for the first time in history, everyone owned a car (big ones, at that) and they did not want to leave them. With the baby boom, it also solved the problem of what to do with the little ones when they wanted to attend a show and additionally, they loved the fact that they did not have to dress up for the show, as was socially expected in that era. While that generation has largely died off and/or tired of the fad, we now have my generation that is a whole new beast any loves the drive-in for their own modern-day reasons. People now want to have control of their own sound (any many people pour lots of $$$ in their car sound systems), they want to text and talk during the film, they want to be able to smoke a joint or enjoy a beer at the movies, the die-hard, yuppie dog lovers of today hate parting with "Fido" for any amount of time and finally, this era's "baby boom" presents brand new problems that the drive in can solve. Women are once again having children younger and younger in life and many of them are single mothers. As a single mother, they cannot simply leave the kids with their husband or mother-in-law when they want a "girls night out" and their Taco Bell wages often prohibit hiring a baby sitter. At the drive in, with many (such as ours) offering free admission to children 12 and under, that problem is solved. Many of the upper-class young people are also starved for a personal taste of nostalgia, and the drive in is always a wonderful fix. So just as my WWII-era grandparents loved the drive in back in 1950 for the problems it solved in their lives, my generation loves the drive in for the unique problems it solves in theirs.
Fads come and go, however, and it's anyone's guess how long they will last as people are always changing. I have a friend who has been in the carpet business since 1969 and he mused to me a while back on how he sells and installs more shag carpet now than he ever did in the 70's. Go figure!

We can and will go digital, but only when we have no other choice. This is due to the fact that we prefer the quality of 35mm film as well as the fact that we do not want to put wear and tear on a new digital system that we do not need to be using at this time. Also, we speculate that the equipment may even be slightly better at the time we must convert. I believe the owners of the Holiday told me that they will be going digital in the very near future.

While I both like and advocate the "co-op" idea of a few theaters banding together to have prints made, I worry that with the entire industry's swing to digital, in a few short years we may find ourselves running worn-out antiques that will be next to impossible to find parts, support and service for. I think the print idea would work, but if we have no reliable equipment to run the said prints on, what do we do? This worries me more than the shortage of prints because I still have an indoor arthouse that runs a lot of 35 and 16mm archival stuff and will for the entire foreseeable future, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.

I like the community donation idea (as I said in another post some 2 months ago) but only time will tell if it works or not. There is NOTHING wrong with a private business owner asking for help to keep something running that he/she believes to be both important to and enjoyed by the community it serves. It is their choice to decide weather or not it is worth forking over "free" money to and if so, how much to give.

I know myself that there are businesses in my community that would greatly inconvenience me if they closed. For example, there is a nearby truckstop in my area that me and my family frequent, especially with me not getting off work until 1-5am and needing "dinner". It runs 24 hours, has good food at reasonable prices, is comfortable to sit in, has a great staff and is historic. I know that the owner (who I do not personally know) is making money hand over fist but if he were to get up and say that he needed a new freezer and would close if the community did not raise the funds to purchase it, I'd gladly fork over $50 so as not to loose something that I enjoy and helps my life. And I ain't rich...
Most of these small towns greatly value their old theaters and these people are too stubborn to let them go. In many cases, they are the area's one source of entertainment, only way to keep their teens and seniors from driving many dangerous miles on highways to seek other entertainment, an important source of tax revenue and last but not least, a great piece of history that puts one of the few important feathers in the town's hat.
I do, however, feel that groups/businesses that do this should carefully record who donated what and return all funds if the intended project fails. Keeping the money is no different than not handing over an item or rendering a service that one has paid you for.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-15-2012, 06:11 PM:
 
Two points about the drive-in I operate. Because it sits on the same property as the hard top theatre, there is very little extra cost in operating our drive-in aside from the supplies, labor, and electricity used during operating season.

While it is not a high grossing drive-in, it does essentially provide us with a sixth and seventh screen for our cinema which allows us to drop movies a week or two earlier than we otherwise would. This provides us greater flexibility when we hit a log jam in the summer season.

Whether we are able to convert to digital will largely depend on whether they can establish a VPF plan for drive-ins. Otherwise, 2012 will likely be our last season, and even that is still unknown because we don't know what the outlook is for 35mm prints come summer.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 01-15-2012, 06:27 PM:
 
Alas, Justin, this is why many small/old theaters, both indoor and outdoor, are in trouble. They have been able to limp along for this long because everything is paid for, most are family-operated and there is not much money lost in these money pits. At this juncture where a lot of money must be spent on them for the first time in decades in order for them to continue, it is up to a good-willed owner, community or organization to donate the funds if they want the theater to continue.

I was unaware that VPFs were not offered to DIs.....
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2012, 07:30 PM:
 

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

they can establish a VPF plan for drive-ins

---

quote: Tony L. Hernandez

---

I was unaware that VPFs were not offered to DIs.....

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

Where is the UDITOA (United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association) in all of this?

---

quote: Barry Floyd

---

but I'm probably going to lease the equipment instead

---

quote:

---

Scott, don't discount the VPFs. They are the ONLY reason that A LOT of theaters will continue to operate!

---

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

It would be cheaper for the Drive-ins to band together, pay for a negative to be struck and use independent labs to make prints.

It is highly doubtful that any drive in currently running would be able to sustain the kind of finance needed to go digital.

And what happens when the mediocre life span of these things expires?

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

So, what happens in 5-10 years when they need to buy the next generation of equipment? It seems to me that VPFs are just delaying the inevitable for many venues.

---

While I do worry about this issue, two thoughts give me small amounts of comfort:

1. I don't anticipate having to buy a whole new setup all at once, like I had to do the first time. A repair or upgrade SHOULD be cheaper than a whole new unit, I'd think.

2. Everything should get cheaper as time goes on, given the typical way things go in electronic gear. (I know, economics of scale don't apply as much to theatres, but the equipment companies are going to have to do SOMEthing to keep the wheels turning....maybe charge the home market a little more and theatrical a little less?)

Anyway I don't buy the whole 5-10 year doom and gloom scenario. Maybe I'm wrong, but we always seem to figure something out. If not....see you around the bankruptcy court!
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-17-2012, 02:42 PM:
 
I was going to comment on the anti-trust issue but I think I'll just let it pass.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-17-2012, 03:42 PM:
 
The studios will argue that digital has been coming for ten years so if exhibitors didn't start planning for a way to "upgrade" when this all started, then extending the deadline for a film distribution end-date won't help them as it's been "extended" now for years.

Problem with that argument, which I've heard made often, is that the transition has been fraught with vaguaries, unfounded predictions, inuendo and plain old pulled-out-of-the-ass BS. Studios have not, even to this day, said the full monte will be on such-and-such a date. No one has said, "Boys, this is when film will end." Had they done that five years ago, even three, I think smaller exhibitors would have been more focused on the need to start a real financial plan to get to a point where upgrading wouldn't force them to close their doors. I think it was Scott who posted that the digital conversion process was done very poorly; rightly so.

Distribution should have established a kind of "April 15" day which would have motivate the procrastinator types, most of whom typically would be the smaller exhibitor and the mom and pops operations (which most ozoners are) because of their much more limited financial resources than the chains. A definative end-date would have motivated them to get off the fence or face really dire consequences. Even now, there is still no April 15 bye bye film date, so the fence sitters are still procrastinating and some realizing it may be too late.

As for collusion on the part of the studios, well, there may not be any overt collusion, or at least none that can be proven, but some how we all know that even though they are not supposed to get in a back room and conspire to all do the same thing, ever look at the Master Contracts or the way terms are set? You wouldn't be able to tell one studio from another....so how did they all get on the same 20 or 30 pages with THAT stuff? That only tells me there is iffy collusion and then there is overt collusion. Exhibitors should have long ago been doing a lot more iffy collusion for themselves. NATO...are you listening to this...?
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-18-2012, 01:55 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

Studios have not, even to this day, said the full monte will be on such-and-such a date.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

No one has said, "Boys, this is when film will end."

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

ever look at the Master Contracts or the way terms are set? You wouldn't be able to tell one studio from another....so how did they all get on the same 20 or 30 pages with THAT stuff?

---