This is topic Cinemark tries to do a nice thing, gets angry response 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=006784
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-02-2013, 04:01 PM:
I guess I can see why families of those victims would never want to go back to the place again, but I think their response to Cinemark's gesture was a little sour grape-ish. Although, having never lost a loved one in this manner I obviously have no point of reference.
Anyway for them to belittle Cinemark's gesture and calling it a "quest for profits" is a little out-of-order. What were they supposed to do? Isn't there an old saying, if you fall off a horse you should get right back on?
Might have been better for Cinemark to just leave it alone...?
Cinemark Offers Tickets To Reopening Night For Aurora Victims' Families, Prompts Angry Response
Family members of those who were killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting sent an angry letter to Cinemark after being invited to "a special evening of remembrance" and a movie in the theater where their loved ones were massacred.
Relatives of eight of the victims signed the letter, saying they were especially angry that the invitations to the theater's reopening night were received so soon after the holidays.
quote: "Excerpt from the letter"
During the holiday we didn't think anyone or anything could make our grief worse but you, Cinemark, have managed to do just that by sending us an invitation two days after Christmas inviting us to attend the re-opening of your theater in Aurora where our loved ones were massacred.Thanks for making what is a very difficult holiday season that much more difficult. Timing is everything and yours is awful...
You (Cinemark) refused our repeated invitations to speak parent to parent with no lawyers involved. Instead, we get invited to attend a "special evening of remembrance" at the very theater where our loved ones lay dead on the floor for over 15 hours. We would give anything to wipe the carnage of that night out of our minds' eye. Thank you for reminding us how your quest for profits has blinded your leadership and made you so callous as to be oblivious to our mental anguish.
The letter also says that that Cinemark never reached out to family members to offer their condolences and that "telling us to be sure 'to reserve our tickets' is wholly offensive to the memory of our loved ones (Click over to The Denver Post to read the full letter).
On January 17th the Century 16 theater, owned by Cinemark, is set to reopen after renovations have been completed.
Theater No. 9, where 12 people were killed and 58 others were wounded on July 20, is reportedly going to be turned into one of Cinemark's "extreme digital cinemas" with a screen that stretches from ceiling to floor. That theater is also set to have 61 less seats than it had on the night of the shooting.
Fox31 reports that the Century 16 theater now has a mural on the outside, with the number 16 removed.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan are both expected to attend the reopening of the theater, but family members of the shooting victims have said they are organizing a boycott of the event.
Last August, Hogan said there had been overwhelming support to reopen the theater after a community survey was conducted by the city.
Hogan called the theater's reopening "another step in the community's healing," but Lonnie Phillips, the stepfather of Jessica Ghawi, who died in the theater shooting, told the Dever Post he felt it was just the opposite.
"It's like people going back to a slaughterhouse, as far as I am concerned."
Denver Post article
Here is the full letter as reported in the Denver Post.
To the Management of Cinemark USA, Inc.:
During the holiday we didn't think anyone or anything could make our grief worse but you, Cinemark, have managed to do just that by sending us an invitation two days after Christmas inviting us to attend the re-opening of your theater in Aurora where our loved ones were massacred.Thanks for making what is a very difficult holiday season that much more difficult. Timing is everything and yours is awful.
You (Cinemark) has shown, and continues to show, ZERO compassion to the families of the victims whose loved ones were killed in their theater. You, Cinemark, have never once reached out to the families to offer condolences.
This disgusting offer that you'd "like to invite you and a guest to a special evening of remembrance on Thursday, January 17 at 5 PM" followed by the showing of a movie and then telling us to be sure "to reserve our tickets" is wholly offensive to the memory of our loved ones.
Our family members will never be on this earth with us again and a movie ticket and some token words from people who didn't care enough to reach out to us, nor respond when we reached out to them to talk, is appalling.
You (Cinemark) refused our repeated invitations to speak parent to parent with no lawyers involved. Instead, we get invited to attend a "special evening of remembrance" at the very theater where our loved ones lay dead on the floor for over 15 hours. We would give anything to wipe the carnage of that night out of our minds' eye. Thank you for reminding us how your quest for profits has blinded your leadership and made you so callous as to be oblivious to our mental anguish.
We, the families, recognize your thinly veiled publicity ploy for what it is: A great opportunity for you to distance yourselves and divert public scrutiny from your culpability in this massacre.
After reading our response to your ridiculously offensive invitation, you now know why we will not be attending your re-opening celebration and will be using every social media tool at our disposal to ask the other victims to ask their friends and family to honor us by boycotting the killing field of our children.
The Families of the Aurora Cinemark Theatre Massacre
Thomas Teves (father of Alex Teves)
Caren Teves (mother of Alex Teves)
Sandy Phillips (mother of Jessica Ghawi)
Lonnie Phillips (stepfather of Jessica Ghawi)
Jerri Jackson (mother of Matt McQuinn)
Greg Medek (father of Micayla Medek)
Rena Medek (mother of Micayla Medek)
Anita Busch (cousin of Greg and Micayla Medek)
Robert Wingo, (father of Rebecca Ann Wingo's two children)
Scott Larimer (father of John Larimer)
Kathleen Larimer (mother of John Larimer)
Jessica Watts (cousin of Jonathan Blunk)
Robert Sullivan (grandfather of Veronica Moser-Sullivan)
Sue Sullivan (grandmother of Veronica Moser-Sullivan)
Cassandra Sullivan (widow of Alex Sullivan)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-02-2013, 05:12 PM:
Gotta admit, that was in pretty bad taste for Cinemark to send out a letter like that. Not only is it downright awkward (come watch a movie in the auditorium where your loved ones were killed which is now called XD for "Xtreme Deaths") but it also really does sound like it was written by their marketing guy "be sure to reserve your tickets!" It's a very odd thing for them to do. They should do something else that has nothing to do with the building.
Glad to hear they removed the "16" from the building's logo, though. That makes it all better.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-02-2013, 05:45 PM:
Maybe they are going to do something like the idea I mentioned on Facebook: Get rid of the "16" name and renumber the auditoriums, so that the "Theatre 9" stigma will be lessened.
I can't really pass a judgement on Cinemark's gesture unless we can see the letter they sent out.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-02-2013, 07:11 PM:
Completely heartless and tasteless. The place should have been demolished and the site put to a different use.
Reminds me of stories I heard from way back where a replacement operator was called to replace one that died in the middle of a shift and had to step over the corpse to get around the booth.
"Show must go on"
Perhaps the stories I heard were apocryphal but somehow I don't think so.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-02-2013, 07:39 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Completely heartless and tasteless. The place should have been demolished and the site put to a different use.
That's something I do not agree about. Should we try to erase the stuff that reminds us of the past every time something horrible happens? That's also a little bit like giving in to me.
To some extent, I guess, yes... the show must go on.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2013, 08:15 PM:
I think Joe pointed out the biggest issue with the shooting in this thread.
quote: Joe Redifer
Just imagine being trapped in a stadium-seating auditorium during something like this. In order to escape you'd need to run down and forward, towards the shooter and then turn around and run out of a skinny access hallway.
If Cinemark truly cared, they would've modified this building...and every other stadium seating building in their circuit...so every auditorium would have rear exits.
Instead I'm guessing the only structural modification they did was to "XD" it. Sure the XD auditorium may (or may not) have rear exit(s), but what about the non-XD rooms?
Personally this is one rare instance where I think government should step in and mandate things in the construction. We already have some fire and building codes that are required and provide valid safety benefits to the customers (and some that are just silly), but this one is pretty obvious.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-02-2013, 08:54 PM:
Well, the only thing worse would be to charge the relatives. Wait. . . . they ARE comping them aren't they? No? Louis
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2013, 09:15 PM:
The problem is, if they comp them then it says that their family member's death value is a free ticket. If they don't comp them, then it says their family member's death isn't even worth a free ticket.
Either way is a fail.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-02-2013, 09:42 PM:
I think the right thing to do would have been to do nothing.
No matter what Cinemark does, there will be somebody who finds fault with it. People are sad, mad, afraid, emotionally scarred or otherwise upset and the only thing that is going to make them feel better is time. (People suffering from psychological trauma are another issue.) Cinemark trying to contact these people in any way is like poking the proverbial bear.
People in such a fragile emotional state will essentially think up reasons to get pissed off, no matter how nice you try to be. Leroy Mitchell, * himself, could promise to personally kiss the asses of every person who was in that theater and post the video on YouTube for all to see but people would still not be satisfied.
Those people just want to hate something or somebody. They are not acting rationally and they will lash out at the first person or thing they come into contact with. Cinemark should have known that. It was a stupid move to put themselves in such a position.
They should have let sleeping dogs lie.
* Does Leroy Mitchell still own the company?
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-03-2013, 12:49 AM:
Marcel says,
"That's something I do not agree about. Should we try to erase the stuff that reminds us of the past every time something horrible happens? That's also a little bit like giving in to me."
I do get that "the show must go on" in the best sense of it, but this phrase was intended to deal with problems of the actors being too ill to go on, a leaky roof, or a producer who skipped town with the proceeds.
But this was no "ordinary" murder even for the violent culture in the USA, but maybe make a suitable memorial at the site whatever its new use, instead of some meaningless, self serving event. It would have been nice if Cinemark announced some significant changes in layout or security as Brad says.
Last, there are memorials all over the Netherlands to horrific events, so the overall purpose of memorials is well known; to remind us and strive to do better.
Sorry if this sounds too preachy.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-03-2013, 09:05 AM:
This is something they really needed to hire a pro to finesse. Instead it sounds like a submission to Boxoffice magazine's Showmandizer.
MAYBE, just MAYBE, if they had some sort of memorial re-opening just with a VERY,VERY carefully selected movie they could have done it tastefully, but it would take lots of taste and effort. And absolutely no trailers for carnage movies. Just inviting them to see whatever random movie will be playing is thoughtless bordering on sick.
The part about not having reached out to the families, or been willing to talk to them without lawyers, really gives the game away. At this point, it would have been best for them to do nothing and do it quietly.
Posted by Mike Peterson (Member # 4049) on 01-03-2013, 10:22 AM:
It sickens me that they turned #9 into an extreme digital cinema. It almost seems like they are glorifying the massacre by making it state of the art. If Cinemark decided to keep the theatre operational, they should have closed the doors on #9 and run on the other 15 screens and maybe made #9 into a memorial. I for one would never want to see a movie in that house and what type of movie would you play in there? Can't do a horror or violent movie and I wouldn't bring my kids to a G rated movie there.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-03-2013, 12:19 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Completely heartless and tasteless. The place should have been demolished and the site put to a different use
quote: Mike Peterson
It sickens me that they turned #9 into an extreme digital cinema. It almost seems like they are glorifying the massacre by making it state of the art. If Cinemark decided to keep the theatre operational, they should have closed the doors on #9 and run on the other 15 screens and maybe made #9 into a memorial.
Why and why? 100% disagree with both of you here. They didn't turn the WTC garage into a memorial when 6 people were killed in the 1993 bombing. They re-built and reopened the part of the Pentagon destroyed on 9/11. When a person or group of people is killed somewhere it doesn't make it off limits forever "out of respect" or fear of haunting or whatever.
A theatre is a business. They probably should have re-numbered or called it "Theatre A" or something. Inviting the families was a little odd but upgrading and reopening the auditorium is exactly what should have been done. Part of the anger by the families is due to lack of communication except through attorneys prior to this. I can't blame Cinemark for that. I don't know if suits have been filed against them but there is a huge risk of it.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 01-03-2013, 12:30 PM:
I'm sure making a media circus out of the letter is doing a great deal for their "mental anguish." Kind of shows the true motive right there. Hey, look at me! Cinemark did not publicly invite them and make a show of it, they sent them a letter privately. Any response should have been handled the same way, privately.
Posted by Kerry Fleming (Member # 1657) on 01-03-2013, 12:38 PM:
They will never forget what happened there. Bring in the bulldozers. Tear it down. Replace it with anything but another movie theater. Ease the pain. Move on.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2013, 12:56 PM:
quote: Kerry Fleming
Bring in the bulldozers. Tear it down. Replace it with anything but another movie theater. Ease the pain.
How does that "ease the pain?" Why wallow in grief? The only thing that will ease the pain is TIME. And moving on, yes.
There are alot of calls for creating yet another memorial on this spot. If I had a relative die in a way such as this, I think it would be a lot easier for me to "move on" if the place was returned to its former use -- and MADE BETTER -- than if it was just turned into a big empty lot with a memorial on it, that would remind me of the sad occasion every time I drove by the place.
If we decide to bulldoze and make into a "memorial" every place where there is a shooting or an attack of some kind, soon we will have nothing left but a bunch of memorials.
They're talking about permanently closing that school in Connecticut. WHY? The government cannot afford to build a whole new school. Just repaint it and move on. Kids have very short attention spans. They will heal a lot faster if they're not reminded of what happened every single day of their school years.
The people in that theatre that night were moviegoers, having a good time. Do you think THEY would want some kind of memorial reminding everyone for generations of the awful way they died? If they were war heroes, maybe yes. But in this case, I think they would probably want people to keep on enjoying movies in an even better venue. I know I would.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-03-2013, 01:20 PM:
Mike says,
"If we decide to bulldoze and make into a "memorial" every place where there is a shooting or an attack of some kind, soon we will have nothing left but a bunch of memorials."
I know you don't mean to trivialize this mass shooting, but that is how this paragraph sounds to me. This is not just some random convenience store shooting or some drug deal gone wrong.
I do believe this is the first time a mass ambush and shooting has happened in our industry and that in itself would be a reason for Cinemark to show some sensitivity. It's not like they don't have a few thousand other screens.
Also,there may some unintentional irony in your phrasing.
As to others points comparing this to the WTC; No go, as WTC was an attack by a terrorist group, and our rebuilding on the same site is intended to show the USA cannot be humbled or subdued.
I don't believe Cinemark can pull off righteous indignation or national pride as a reason to keep this place open, just crass commercialism.
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 01-03-2013, 03:03 PM:
The horror was in no way CineMark's fault. I do not fault them for trying to do SOMETHING. After all, where in this business do we learn what to do if someone breaches an auditorium and shoots up your audience. They are, at best, probably embarrassed that their effort was me with that kind of response by the relatives of the victims. Demolishing the building will not help anyone or change anything.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-03-2013, 04:04 PM:
What's the difference why a tragedy happens or who caused it? If a group of teens is killed in a car accident do you tear up the road? Bulldozing the building is the absoulute wrong thing to do. That sends the message to nutjobs that if they massacre people, not only will they get well known but they'll also permanently shut down a location.
Once again, this is a business. If (God forbid) there was a tragedy at Mike's independent single screen should he be forced to go out of business out of respect for the victims? Just because Cinemark is a large chain that doesn't "need" that locaton doesn't make it any different.
Also, what about the public for whom this is the most convenient location? I don't mean to come of as completely insensitive but the fact is that closing the auditorium or bulldozing the building won't do anything to bring the victims back or make the lives of the families any better.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-03-2013, 04:42 PM:
Lyle says,
"What's the difference why a tragedy happens or who caused it? If a group of teens is killed in a car accident do you tear up the road? Bulldozing the building is the absoulute wrong thing to do. That sends the message to nutjobs that if they massacre people, not only will they get well known but they'll also permanently shut down a location."
I think it does make a difference who attacked you. It might give you a chance to retaliate if it's an enemy. That's the easy part.
What's if it is a maniac? Wouldn't you want to know who killed your kids and why if possible so it doesn't happen to others?
As to the road analogy; You don't tear up the road on which your children were killed, you improve it and maybe put a little statue marking the spot. It makes the family feel better and that's reason enough I think.
I do realize the murders were not Cinemark's fault. Only being unbelievably insensitive in the way they are handling the re-opening.
About the only thing more insensitive would be to show "Bowling For Columbine" at the grand opening.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2013, 05:25 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
You don't tear up the road on which your children were killed, you improve it and maybe put a little statue marking the spot.
Isn't that the exact same thing as making "Theatre 9" into the best possible kind of auditorium so future generations can have fun and enjoy movies there?
quote:
I know you don't mean to trivialize this mass shooting... This is not just some random convenience store shooting or some drug deal gone wrong.
Very true, it's a tragic event to be sure. But, even if it is a random convenience store shooting, or a drug deal gone wrong...just because it wasn't 20 people or a bunch of kids, does that make it less tragic for the families of the victims? NO. That's why I'm basically against this kind of memorial. It does nothing but extend the tragedy for the victims, and it ignores all the other people who are killed every day in far less dramatic ways.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-03-2013, 05:35 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
I think it does make a difference who attacked you. It might give you a chance to retaliate if it's an enemy. That's the easy part.
I was saying "what's the difference" as it applies to what you do with the location of the tragic event afterwards.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-03-2013, 07:03 PM:
Mike says,
"Isn't that the exact same thing as making "Theatre 9" into the best possible kind of auditorium so future generations can have fun and enjoy movies there?"
I don't think it's the same as say a car accident on a road. It might due to a drunk driver, a rollover due to a flat tire or other mishap, or simply fate as perhaps a guy has a stroke and crosses 3 lanes into a head on collision. No less dead for sure and just as big a loss to their loved ones, but...
True evil took place at this location. It was a plotted massacre that could have even been much worse. I don't see how people can enjoy themselves in this spot no matter how nice you make it.
Perhaps moviegoers will vote with their feet and choose not to go there.
I'm glad Lyle posted a reply.
The search for Why is essential to us as humans and is one of what separates us from animals.
That and we're not afraid of vacuum cleaners. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 01-03-2013, 09:45 PM:
Idiotic move by Cinemark. IMO the right answer? Shutter Theater 9. Drywall over it, make it like it never existed. Have some sort of memorial or remembrance in the building, then reopen and rededicate. Invite the families to THAT if anything, not a freaking movie. Agreed wholeheartedly, perhaps better left alone.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-03-2013, 10:12 PM:
Yes to Jeff. The least they can do.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2013, 11:48 PM:
OK some of the comments in this thread are driving me absolutely up the wall:
quote: Mike Peterson
It sickens me that they turned #9 into an extreme digital cinema. It almost seems like they are glorifying the massacre by making it state of the art.
quote: Lyle Romer
Inviting the families was a little odd but upgrading and reopening the auditorium is exactly what should have been done.
quote: Mike Blakesley
making "Theatre 9" into the best possible kind of auditorium so future generations can have fun and enjoy movies there?
GAAAHH!! Have you guys ever even been in a Cinemark XD auditorium? It is not "state of the art", it is not an upgrade and it most certainly isn't the best possible auditorium. It makes the moviegoing experience much worse as the only standards they need to meet are their own inept ShittyMark™ standards. This really is an insult to all of the people murdered in that auditorium. They might as well just Tinseltown the place and call it a day.
Here's what I would have done:
-Offer free tickets and concessions FOR LIFE for you and a guest at any CineMark theater anywhere at any time. This would be available to all survivors and immediate family members of the deceased. This includes tickets to regular matinee movies, evening shows on Saturday nights, 3D, IMAX, whatever. No limit on concessions per visit except that they only be given to the passholder and/or their guest.
-Free DVD of Ernest Goes to Jail.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-04-2013, 10:14 AM:
I like Joe's first idea, but I would definitely skip the DVD.
I agree with the fact that Cinemark has remodeled and is reopening the theater. This is a commercial business that needs to get back to its business and supporting the many employees that work there, as well as serve the community (which has said it wants the theater back in operation).
It's a missed opportunity if they did not add some safety measures to the theater during this renovation. Back stairs on a large stadium seating auditorium would make sense to me, and I would certainly hope that emergency exits now have alarms and monitoring on them.
Probably the single-best thing that a theater could do to build customer confidence is the presence of employees in the auditorium. Show people that staff is present by posting an employee at the auditorium doors welcoming people to the show, having a discrete check during the movie from time to time to check on the presentation and for any crowd behavior issues, and then have staff saying goodbye and thanking them for coming when they leave the auditorium. Not only is this good from a showmanship standpoint, it tells people that someone is aware of their comings and goings.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-04-2013, 10:34 AM:
This strikes me as essentially a bad judgment call, probably made by some 20-something public relations person who meant well, but didn't stop to think; compounded by his or her bosses, who OK-ed the idea without stopping to think, either. I mean, you shouldn't need the skills of a psychiatrist or the emotional intelligence of a pastor to work out that inviting the relatives of murder victims to a celebratory event at the scene of the crime is unlikely to get a positive response!
It would have been far better to, for example, re-open the place quietly and without fuss, and to offer to donate the opening week's takings to a charity that provides support for the families of murder victims. But having made a blunder like that, all you can really do is to apologise and move on.
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-04-2013, 03:11 PM:
SOURCE: Denver Post
quote: Tom Sullvan, father of shooting victim Alex Sullvan
To my neighbors and fellow moviegoers:
Movies have always been a tool to gather my family together. We went to movie theaters to celebrate birthdays, relax on snowy Sunday afternoons, and escape the craziness of everyday.
On July 20, 2012, my son, Alex Sullivan, did just that. He gathered with his friends to celebrate his birthday and watch one of his favorite superheroes. Several months later, we are faced with the reopening of the theater that my son never walked out of and a night of remembrance put on by Cinemark Theaters.
While this will be an extremely difficult time, if you truly knew my son Alex, you would know that he would want me to be there, if only to show that we will not allow anyone to take the joy we shared at theaters across the metro area away from us and help gather the Aurora community together.
Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan and I spoke on the Sunday after the theater shootings (while we waited for President Obama) about the future of that theater. Hogan told me it was not a decision that he would make, but it would be decided by the people of Aurora.
The decision to reopen the theater and hold this night of remembrance was something that the Aurora community asked for, and will be the first step in gathering and rebuilding the Aurora community. If there is anything I can do to help my community all through this difficult time, I will do it.
Although I am firmly in the middle of this and will be until the day I leave this place, this is bigger than me or any one person. A week after the shootings, Gov. John Hickenlooper read the name "Alex Sullivan" to the tens of thousands assembled at the Aurora City and County building, and they shouted back in unison, "We will Remember." Please know that I will never forget that. I won't forget the prayers said for us, the tears shed for us, the cards and letters I read or the overflow of love and caring that was directed to my family by the people of Aurora and beyond.
If I can help just one person though the difficult experience of walking into this theater or any theater, then it will be an effort I have to make. I will never tell anyone what is the right way or wrong way to grieve the loss of a loved one. We all have our own way, but I have found that with each moment of grief I have had since Alex left, I make it up with three moments of happiness and healing for the time I spent with him.
So I ask all to join me, if you can, into a future not as bright as the future would have been had our loved ones been there with us, but a future nonetheless. The seat next to me will be saved for Alex, but I'll have an extra hand if you need something to hold on to.
God bless.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-04-2013, 04:21 PM:
Now THAT is one of the best things I've read in a long, long time. This is a man who has made (is making) a real effort to move on. He has reached the "acceptance" part of the grieving process. Everyone gets there at their own pace.
The people who signed the original letter from page 1 are still at the "anger" part of the process. I pray that they will all eventually find peace.
Here's an interesting clip from an article about how some of the original letter-signers are organizing a boycott:
quote:
Caren and Tom Teves, parents of Alexander Teves, 24, who died in the shooting, also signed the letter to Cinemark.
"If the company truly wanted to show a gesture of compassion," Caren Teves said, "it would arrange for a percentage of profits to go to victims and their families."
Hmm, now who's on a quest for profits?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-04-2013, 09:23 PM:
Giving this some thought, I think if I was Cinemark I would have just opened this location with no fanfare at all. Just turned the lights on and opened. The way they're doing it, all these bloodhound media goons will be swarming all over the place asking people stupid questions like "How does it feel to be going back into the same location where all those people were shot?" and then later, "Were you able to enjoy the movie sitting right there in the same room where the carnage took place?" etc.
They'll have to brace for similar nonsense on the anniversary of the shooting. They should just be glad there are no more Batman movies for awhile.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-05-2013, 12:08 AM:
Mike says,
"Hmm, now who's on a quest for profits?"
I would cut the parents some slack and not imply in their present tender state of looking for a handout.
Meantime, you are taking the reports of the press as accurate regarding the parents words and context, while trashing the press for being news hounds for an opening that has not yet happened.
Can't have it both ways.
I don't get why you seem to be the most angry or perhaps bitter person on this topic. You've always struck me as very pleasant.
Finally, I don't think a cinema could operate in a big city market without publicity, ads, or press.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-05-2013, 01:02 AM:
I guess I do get a little bitter at the media. I think the problem is caused by the fact that there are SO many news outlets all having 24 hours of time to fill every day, and each willing to do anything (rational or not) to "scoop" the competition. Then you have our "reality-TV" influenced culture that thinks it has to poke its head into everything, whether it's a private matter or not. Then you add on top of that all these people who "speak on condition of anonymity because they're not authorized to speak about the issue" and the whole thing just sort of sets me off.
The part about the parents' "quest for money" just struck me as kind of interesting, since one of the same people who is all in favor of a Cinemark boycott is also wanting a share of the profits. But, I can see where those people are not exactly thinking rationally yet.
I guess I've been putting more of my pleasant side on Facebook these days and my curmudgeonly side is coming out here lately. Sorry about that, I'll try to be more balanced! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: Sam D. Chavez
trashing the press for being news hounds for an opening that has not yet happened.
Based on just about every disaster or tragedy in the recent past, it's pretty easy to speculate that the news reporters are going to be all around that cinema on opening night bombarding people with questions, taking photos of any people who happen to be crying, etc. That's why I suggested they should have just had a soft opening with no fanfare or even advertising.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-05-2013, 01:03 PM:
I don't find it fair that a business gets punished because something happened that was out of their control. To close the place and put 50-80 people out of work in a poor economy is wrong. I think the company was trying to do what they felt was the right thing if they reopened the building without inviting the families they would have been criticized.
I blame our society how long did it take after the Sandy Hook tragedy to have a lawsuit filed? Does anyone really believe that there are not lawyers trying to convince the families to hire them to find a way to sue Cinemark? Cinemark did not make the coward that did this they did not ask for it so why should they be villanized.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-05-2013, 03:30 PM:
I think Cinemark was a tad bit insensitive with this particular ploy. It would have been better for them to just leave the issue alone.
I strongly disagree with the notion Cinemark should demolish this theater. No one working for Cinemark planned this shooting. It is not the company's fault this shooting happened. Why should they pay a GIANT penalty over it? This is a little different than bulldozing a McDonald's in San Diego or a Luby's restaurant in Kileen, TX.
Let's be clear, new movie theaters these days cost a SHIT-TON to build, especially in a highly populated market like Denver, Colorado. It's a sure fire bet Cinemark already has a long term lease contract with some third party over the property on which this existing theater stands. The company would be looking at demolition costs of the existing theater, income loss from that theater and costs of breaking their lease with the property owner. Then Cinemark would have to find a comparable site in that area on which to build a new theater (if they even could do so). The new site would probably cost even more to lease and Cinemark would have to pony up current construction costs for a new build. On top of this, the property owner of the existing theater might want to sue Cinemark. Rhetorical question: why? If Cinemark demolished that theater public demands would be even greater on the property owner to turn the site into a memorial. A commercial property owner isn't gonna make squat for money off a memorial sitting on his property.
Now if the taxpayers of Denver, CO want to compensate Cinemark and the property owner enough money for the theater to be demolished and other cost related issues to be handled then it I suppose it would be okay to replace the theater with a memorial. For now, any such demands are an unfunded mandate.
Too often too many people in the general public have this belief corporations have infinite amounts of money in the bank and can absorb infinite amounts of losses to their bottom line. This is despite the fact most of the big movie theater chains have been in and out of bankruptcy over the last 15 years.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess I do get a little bitter at the media. I think the problem is caused by the fact that there are SO many news outlets all having 24 hours of time to fill every day, and each willing to do anything (rational or not) to "scoop" the competition.
Worse than that, these so-called 24 "news" networks are often willing to run news stories with absolutely WRONG information just to be out there ahead of other networks. And why not? They're not held accountable for any mistakes in the reporting. Additionally, the "journalists" (media personalities) inject their own opinions and agendas into the stories, spinning them whatever way they see fit.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-05-2013, 03:32 PM:
In reply to Sean,
I'm quite certain there are lawyers all over the place trying to put cases together. This is one of the many wonderful aspects of the society we live in, sarcasm is intentional.
But this had nothing specific to do with the mass murder that took place there, does it?
So, since this is the first time this has happened in our industry, it would seem we would want to see what we could do better so it does not happen again.
If instead the stadium seating had collapsed and killed or mangled a few patrons, there would be a review of design and construction practices and a solution would result and changes would be made to prevent this happening again; in part because lawyers are involved. So, is this good or bad? It can be both.
Life is not simple even though we try to make it so.
I predict at the end of all this, lawsuits will be filed and settled and one of the outcomes will be better designed screens and lawyers will have been a part of it.
But then what do I know?
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-05-2013, 04:06 PM:
Legal catch? If a family member accept the free tickets, does that imply that the matter is settled?
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-06-2013, 01:48 PM:
I agree completely that the industry needs to learn from this incident. There are some very inexpensive and unobtrusive ways that might have mitigated some of this horrible event. I think exit door alarms are a good idea, I think regular testing of "shut down" relays is a good idea. Maybe even installing a key switch at the podium, managers kiosk, or box office that when activated trips the same relay the fire alarm trips to shut down all the machines and raise all house lights. Better training of ushers and stricter "theatre check" procedures is something that has not only safety benefits but service benefits also.
What I think is not fair is blaming or villainizing the theatre chain for such an unprecedented tragedy. I know that people who have lost their loved ones in such a horrific way are never going to be the same. I would guess they are experiencing many different emotions including anger and wanting something quantifiable to blame. It is a lot easier to accept that bad things happen because the exit doors were like this or the staff did this wrong than it is to say that an average college kId with severe problems snapped and RANDOMLY killed these people.
Humans do not like random. They like absolute, tangible things. We want to believe that avoiding stadium theaters, or avoiding carmike theaters will keep us safe but it is not the case. I wish it were then it would be easy to avoid tragedy.
It angers me when greedy people take advantage of people in a fragile emotional state for their own gain like a lawyer using a victims family members anger and blaming stages of grief to convince them to seek a pay day from an innocent third party.
As an aside: this makes me think about all the times people refused to evacuate the theaters I worked at during fire alarms. I wonder if people will realize now that their life is more important than a ten dollar movie ticket?
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-06-2013, 03:08 PM:
I am starting to lose the little respect I had for Cinemark.
While from a business standpoint, I understand keeping the location open (20 year leases and all) - but to bring even more attention to the tragedy that happened there was a mistake. The saddest part of their latest "Marketing Idea" - was that it probably took a group of people to come up with it. Which one of those people told the rest of the group - "We shouldn't do this".
They need to fix their problems from the inside. Remember - this is the same company that let a dead guy sit in a bathroom stall for 5 days not too many months before the tragic gun incident.
These corporations need to try and figure out how to go back and run a theatre location properly. Too bad they employ and promote individuals who do not possess the basic common sense.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-07-2013, 12:53 AM:
It's easy to say what should or should not be done in a situation like this when it's not your company and it's not your money on the proverbial table.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 01-07-2013, 07:48 AM:
Dennis...Cinemark isn't exploiting the tragedy. They privately sent out invitations to the family members. No media circus. No press release announcing they'd invited them. The family members got the media involved. Look at me! I'm offended!
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-07-2013, 10:23 AM:
It doesn't matter whether it was a private thing or done publicly. We all know about it - so much for that.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2013, 12:25 AM:
quote: Edward Havens
It's easy to say what should or should not be done in a situation like this when it's not your company and it's not your money on the proverbial table.
True, but this shouldn't be about money. You may be referring to others who wish to have the theater razed. I definitely agree with keeping it open and honestly, as awful as this will sound, adds to the history of the building. History should not be forgotten. But like I said in an earlier post, this shouldn't be about this particular building. I'm quite sure Cinemark could well afford lifetime passes and concessions for all in that auditorium. But should there be a mega-press event for the theater re-opening? Yeah, probably not. In fact I'd probably open without announcing anything. Press comes by and asks "when did you re-open???" "Several days ago and all is fine". Takes the edge off.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-08-2013, 03:35 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
It doesn't matter whether it was a private thing or done publicly. We all know about it - so much for that.
It does matter when you're framing this action as being a public marketing method.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-08-2013, 06:18 PM:
GONE, too sarcastic for this topic.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-08-2013, 07:45 PM:
I recall a few airline crashes where the companies arranged to have psychological counseling available for the passengers and crew that survived, as well as the families of those who did not.
Perhaps this is the path Cinemark should have taken, insofar as demonstrating any sense of concern for the victims and families.
Regarding the question of what to do with the actual theatre -- that one's a tough call. I don't have a great answer to that. I don't think it looks good to take this opportunity to turn it into an XD room -- that seems inappropriate because of the marketing gimmickry and hype associated with that. But, then, leaving it more or less "as is" has too much of a "life goes on" kind of feel to it. And I'd be surprised if people want to go see a movie in that particular auditorium. There will always be an elephant in that room, and a sensitive manager would do well to avoid assigning a slasher pic there? Or another Batman movie. But, really, that's just too complicated to keep track of. And, as more time passes, someone's bound to screw up eventually.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to turn it into the opposite of a "game room" and just redesign it as a "quiet space" -- a big, spacious, tastefully decorated memorial zone -- for people who just want to sit in a quiet lobby while they wait for their show time.
I'll tell you what DOESN'T work for me -- sending an usher in to theatres every 30 minutes with a big red lightsaber-looking-flashlight-thing to do a bullshit "security check" -- it's distracting, and I think there's a better answer to the problem. Namely, exit door annunciators that have to be canceled/reset locally (i.e. at the door in question).
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-08-2013, 09:49 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to turn it into the opposite of a "game room" and just redesign it as a "quiet space" -- a big, spacious, tastefully decorated memorial zone -- for people who just want to sit in a quiet lobby while they wait for their show time.
Who is going to pay for the overhead cost (portion of rent/mortgage, HVAC, maintenance) for this memorial space? I also don't think that it enhances the mood of going to see a movie to wait for your show in a memorial lobby. I don't mean to minimize the tragedy and focus on business completely but the fact is that life does go on.
When there have been major train derailments with many people killed they don't shut down portions of track and turn them into memorials. Same goes for multi car multi fatality highway pileups. Just because the manner of death was a nut with guns doesn't mean that the memorial should be treated any different. Put a plaque on the wall honoring the victims and move on.
The airline crash analogy doesn't really hold. The airline's "product" is getting you from point a to point b safely. A fatal crash is a failure of their product. A movie theatre's "product" is to show you a movie. When a nut picks it as a place to carry out a mass murder it isn't a failure of thier product. If a nut shoots up a church is the church at fault?
As far as solutions, CCTV cameras that monitor the exit doors with monitors in the lobby where multiple employees can see them at any time. Combine them with bright floodlights that can be turned on from the lobby so when you see somebody back there they know it. Obviously you don't want employees going to confront suspicious looking people.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-08-2013, 10:05 PM:
Sigh. I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond. But here goes...
I think most people would expect part of a movie theatre's product involves ensuring that they don't get shot to death in the process. So, I'd consider that a huge failure on their part -- especially since the "inherent risk" is nowhere near as great as traveling by air.
And if a plane crashes, nobody's getting on THAT plane. If a train crashes, it's not the TRACK that people are worried about; it's the actual train. Even if the train *is* put back into service, nobody can really tell one train car from another. A cinema auditorium is different.
As for "who's going to pay for the overhead" -- no amount of money is going to bring back those victims. So going out-of-pocket in a big way is the LEAST Cinemark can do. It's not exactly "marketing" but it is a kind-of "public relations" gesture of goodwill.
Nobody *has* to use the space to wait. But some may. Whatever. That room is pretty much useless, IMHO. I think the memorial space is more tasteful than simply sealing it up and pretending it doesn't exist -- or sending customers there to watch their movie when "they know" what happened there.
I can tell you from experience that movie theatre employees don't watch CCTV monitors. The real practical value of those is always after-the-fact. You gotta force them to walk to the door and turn off the alarm.
So, no...You haven't convinced me of anything.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2013, 10:48 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I think most people would expect part of a movie theatre's product involves ensuring that they don't get shot to death in the process. So, I'd consider that a huge failure on their part -- especially since the "inherent risk" is nowhere near as great as traveling by air.
Inherent risk of what? Do you know how many people have been killed via air travel in the last few years? ZERO. You're far safer in an airplane (flying or not) than you are in any movie theater, elementary school or basically anywhere on planet Earth.
Anyway, keep in mind that Cinemark's security is probably no better or worse than any other theater chain's. You could probably stick a gun under your shirt and simply walk into just about any public place in this country and start firing. We're just lucky that 99.999999% of people are not inclined to do that.
The NRA thinks more armed guards will stop all the gun carnage, but you can't expect there to be armed guards EVERYWHERE -- and that's probably about the only way that every shooting would be stopped, and even that wouldn't work with a really determined shooter. He'd just take out the guard first.
There isn't enough money to pay for all the guards who would be needed to guard every public place...and that's what'd be needed, because the NEXT big shooting is likely to occur at some OTHER type of large public gathering, since the movie theater, college and elementary school have "been done" now.
I still think turning the auditorium into a "memorial" is a bad idea. The best thing is to move on, not keep reminding people over and over of some tragic thing. If a memorial is really desired, why does it have to be in the exact same place as the disaster happened? Maybe a nice park someplace could be dedicated to those victims. (I feel the same way about the 9/11 memorial in New York -- they've wasted millions of square feet of prime space when a memorial could have been built anywhere.)
Probably the best solution to the theater scenario is to have more alerts on the exit doors, and equip the doors with cameras, plus alarms if they get opened. That would require some changes in places where those doors are routinely used as normal exits, but it's probably about the only thing that can be done. The architecture of stadium buildings may not make it possible to include back-of-house emergency exits from the top of the seats but it should be a requirement in new builds.
quote: Manny Knowles
Even if the train *is* put back into service, nobody can really tell one train car from another. A cinema auditorium is different.
And that's why they are changing the auditorium to their "deluxe" version (even though Joe R. doesn't think it's very deluxe, SOMEBODY must think that). If they have any brains at all, like I said earlier, they will also remove the "9" from that auditorium -- maybe change them all to letters, like Auditorium A, B, C etc.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-09-2013, 12:31 AM:
"Inherent risk of what? Do you know how many people have been killed via air travel in the last few years? ZERO. You're far safer in an airplane (flying or not) than you are in any movie theater, elementary school or basically anywhere on planet Earth."
This is really not accurate. Flying is pretty safe but there have been several crashes in the last few years, most notable that comes to mind was Air France 447 between Brazil and Paris that stalled in a storm and fell 38,000 feet in less than 4 minutes with over 200 souls on board.
There was one in Nigeria, Russia, Turkey, etc.
Are we only counting just crashes in the USA?
Now that is not many people compared to the number murdered every year in the USA with guns, but still, the risk of getting killed in a public place seems to be going up, judging by the last year or two.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2013, 01:56 AM:
I was just considering the USA, since that is where the gun debate is centered. I should have clarified that in my post.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2013, 02:13 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The architecture of stadium buildings may not make it possible to include back-of-house emergency exits from the top of the seats but it should be a requirement in new builds.
I'm surprised this entire thread isn't backing that concept. Let's face it, as has been stated before, the same nutbag could've shot up a church or any other public place. The difference is I don't know of too many other public places where people congregate that are designed in such a way to TRAP the people in the room for a shooter. The way MOST stadium auditoriums are built, it is the auditoriums themselves that are a death trap.
I genuinely would like to see this become a federally mandated requirement for all buildings going forward. Not auditoriums that are 300+ seats, but ALL auditoriums MUST have at least one exit directly accessible from the back row.
This nonsense of security cameras and door alarms is ridiculous. So big flippin' deal if there is a door alarm. Even if it was done the way Manny wants (which is admittedly the best way, but still useless in the big picture), the alarm goes off and some dopey kid gets up to go investigate. By the time he gets into the auditorium, 50 bullets have already been launched and the kid just walks into his own death. Great idea!
quote: Mike Blakesley
If they have any brains at all, like I said earlier, they will also remove the "9" from that auditorium -- maybe change them all to letters, like Auditorium A, B, C etc.
Joe worked at a theater that "lettered" their auditoriums, and told me of how ridiculous it was. So I'm on the radio saying "Manny there is a problem in B". Did I say B? Or was it E? Maybe I said G? No, I think it was "D". They sound too similar.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The NRA thinks more armed guards will stop all the gun carnage, but you can't expect there to be armed guards EVERYWHERE -- and that's probably about the only way that every shooting would be stopped, and even that wouldn't work with a really determined shooter. He'd just take out the guard first.
There isn't enough money to pay for all the guards who would be needed to guard every public place...and that's what'd be needed, because the NEXT big shooting is likely to occur at some OTHER type of large public gathering, since the movie theater, college and elementary school have "been done" now.
There are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, but the only way to have a chance at stopping these sort of shootings are in fact licensed people (as in the public) packing (concealed or not, but preferably concealed). Just look at the TSA. Has there ever been a more useless bunch of twats "protecting" us? Nope! Bringing in more "armed guards" to "protect" the public will just be more clueless people standing around eating up tax dollars doing nothing at all. As Mike said above, the guy would just "take out the guard first", but he would think twice if 25% of everyone was packing concealed weapons before he went in and shot up that movie theater, banquet hall, church, etc.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2013, 05:06 AM:
That's a scary thought. The TSA already wants to be everywhere else besides the airport and I imagine they'd throw in quite the bid if it were determined that armed security were needed, well, everywhere. Supposedly they're already starting to get out of the airports and into stadiums for football games and whatnot. For gun ownership I'm all for licensing just like driving. You need a class"A" license to drive this type of vehicle, a class "B" license to drive that type, etc etc etc. Except make it so you need to renew the license more often and not just show up and take a vision test. Demonstrate your ability and knowledge.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-09-2013, 08:57 AM:
Mike, don't be daft!
I don't know about you guys but I suspect most people boarding an aircraft are aware that "this could be it." Statistically, air travel is pretty safe. Yes. All the same, though, is anyone EVER surprised that airplanes DO fall out of the sky from time to time? No. Normal people accept that as the "inherent risk." To quote the movie "Airplane!" (which is never quoted enough) -- "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into!"
Prior to the Colorado shooting, there was never a reason to imagine their life coming to an end in a movie theatre. Even so, if you do the arithmetic, going to the movies remains statistically safer than flying in an airplane. (I can't believe this has to be pointed out.)
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-09-2013, 09:31 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
Joe worked at a theater that "lettered" their auditoriums, and told me of how ridiculous it was. So I'm on the radio saying "Manny there is a problem in B". Did I say B? Or was it E? Maybe I said G? No, I think it was "D". They sound too similar.
Simple solution - Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo...
Also, 100% agree that the solution to violence like this is getting as many law abiding, sane people to carry weapons as possible and then publicise the percentages. This will both make people think twice knowing about it and also offer real protection when people can defend themselves in these situation. No matter what anybody does with "gun control" you will NEVER keep guns away from the bad guys. We can't keep people from crossing the border how are we going to stop guns from coming across the border? People are much easier to spot than guns.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-09-2013, 09:57 AM:
Generally speaking, I'm not in favor of "gun control" but I think some of these ideas need further thought.
The problem we'll have with arming all of the sane people will come with attempting to sort out the sane from the insane. Evidently, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who do a good job of appearing sane...until they carry out their evil deeds.
Additionally, it seems as though most shooters understand that these shooting sprees are, among other things, suicide missions. This is where the term "suicide by cop" applies. Hence, knowing that the room is full of people with guns won't *necessarily* function as a deterrent. In fact, it may make the idea that much more appealing. And then we also have to deal with the strong likelihood that not everyone will have perfect aim, or exercise perfect judgment in a crisis situation. What I mean is, I think we'd end up with a fair amount of deaths by way of "friendly fire." And, when the cops finally do show up...how do they know which man-with-a-gun is the real target?
So, I guess I'm not much of a "gun nut" either..?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2013, 10:45 AM:
Regarding air travel deaths most of those occur in small planes. Many of those crash deaths don't make the national news. Passenger jet airline crashes are pretty rare. You're more likely to die in a car accident traveling to or from the airport than getting killed in a plane crash.
quote: Manny Knowles
I think most people would expect part of a movie theatre's product involves ensuring that they don't get shot to death in the process.
Hardly any business that serves customers in person could make any such implied guarantee of safety. If someone is determined to kill a bunch of people in a public place there's not very much that business can do to stop it. That's especially true if the would-be killer properly develops a plan of attack. It's even more scary if the would-be killer is willing to die in the process of committing the attack. Hiring armed guards might discourage an attack from small arms fire, but it wouldn't do much good if the attacker drove a truck bomb into the building.
We can put more cops on the street, but the police are almost always there after a violent attack has occurred. It's exceedingly rare for them to be there to protect and serve before the attack happens. Police are useful in catching criminals after they've committed a crime. They are a deterrent to crime in that manner. No one wants to get caught. But police are mostly powerless against someone wanting to commit a suicidal terrorist act, especially if the act is planned well enough.
One of the sad facts of life is just about anything involves some measure of risk. It's mostly up to each person to try to protect himself. Gotta be a little street smart. Drive defensively. Eat right and exercise.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Now that is not many people compared to the number murdered every year in the USA with guns, but still, the risk of getting killed in a public place seems to be going up, judging by the last year or two.
Shootings in malls, schools and theaters have lots of people believing more and more murders are being committed each year and that the overall situation with crime is getting worse. The truth is the homicide rate has actually been falling over the last 20 or so years. But one would never know that watching any of the 24-hour so-called news channels on cable or pretty much any other news outlet for that matter. The media gets better ratings by making their viewers angry and scared.
Homicide numbers in the United States are about 60% of what they were in peak years like 1980 or the early 1990s. Between 23,000 and 24,000 murders took place in those years. The US had under 15,000 murders in 2011. New York City has had quite a turn-around. In 1990 more than 2000 murders were committed in the 5 boroughs; in 2012 a little over 400 murders were committed in NYC.
Twice as many people in the United States die by suicide than homicide. Just throwing that out there. You're twice as likely to die by your own hand than get killed by someone else.
quote: Brad Miller
I genuinely would like to see this become a federally mandated requirement for all buildings going forward. Not auditoriums that are 300+ seats, but ALL auditoriums MUST have at least one exit directly accessible from the back row.
While I'm generally in favor of at least one exit door at the back row, such a thing might open a can of worms in bureaucratic expense, like complying with ADA. The new theater might have to add an elevator or two into the design even if people are having to climb stairs to get to the top, back row of the stadium seated area. ADA might demand an area or two up top be cleared for wheelchair positions in addition to other areas below being reserved for them. Overall, such a thing will complicate the projection booth design.
Tactically speaking, it's not really much better for would-be shooting victims to have a back door up at the top of the seating area as a means of escape. The stampede of people trying to get to one or two exit doors up top would create a juicy target for the shooter. All he has to do is concentrate his fire at those exits and watch the bodies clog the escape route. Honestly the situation wouldn't be much different in a standard sloped theater either.
Just how fire proof are movie theater auditoriums? That's another thing that scares me. I can think of a few public space fires here in the United States and other parts of the world where dozens of people were killed, in part because the exits were clogged with bodies of those trying to escape. For instance, the Station Nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI killed 100 people in that manner. If someone set off a fire bomb in a theater auditorium I wonder if the same kind of tragedy could happen.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2013, 11:12 AM:
You just have to hold out hope, whenever you're in a closed space with a lot of people, that nothing bad happens. Because if it does, there will be a panic for the exit and unless you have one door for each person, it's gonna be a slow moving line out the door.
We have four front doors in our building and I'm always impressed with how fast a large crowd can move out at the end of a show -- but if there was something horrible going on inside, it would be the longest couple of minutes in history.
Like I said above, we're all just fortunate that the vast majority of people aren't inclined to do this kind of damage.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-09-2013, 11:20 AM:
I really don't understand how it is that theatres anywhere are allowed to have auditoriums with only one exit. If there is a fire in front of that exit, everyone inside gets to roast?
Fire regulations here wouldn't allow anyone to build anything that way. As I recall from when I was building my theatre, the fire exit requirement is based on door width per occupant, i.e. you are required to have so-many inches or fractions of an inch of fire exit door width per seat in the auditorium. So you start with two doors minimum (main door and one fire exit door) and add additional fire exit doors as the occupancy increases.
Fire exits must open outward and have panic hardware (i.e. push bars). They can never ever be locked or blocked (No sir, you can't leave your walker in the aisle next to the fire exit), and there is a maximum walking distance from each seat to a fire exit. There is also a minimum aisle width based on the number of seats in the auditorium.
I had always assumed that these sorts of regulations were in place everywhere since they are a bit of a nuisance to comply with but they seem to be pretty sensible.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-09-2013, 11:51 AM:
As far as the fire regs go, I think the idea is that the auditorium itself isn't going to be on fire. The seat fabric and wall fabric, etc. must meet fire resistance ratings. I think the theory is that you need to get out of the "building" if there is a fire. The exits at the front let you leave if the concession stand is on fire for instance or the projection booth. The normal exits at the back let you exit if somehow the speakers ignite and the screen is on fire.
Unless there is arson with an accelerant I don't think you could start a fire inside the auditorium even if you wanted to.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2013, 11:51 AM:
Stadium auditoriums always have at least two exits -- one or more in front, one or more in back (behind and under the stadium seating area). Some have an exit at the top of the stadium as well. The issue here is that in order to get to either exit, in the Aurora incident, people had to head down the stairs toward the shooter.
I think maybe I would have been inclined to just dive down between the seats rather than run toward the guy, but who knows?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-09-2013, 12:09 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I recall a few airline crashes where the companies arranged to have psychological counseling available for the passengers and crew that survived, as well as the families of those who did not.
To be fair, fatal airliner crashes happen regularly (even in a good year for air safety, there are two or three). Therefore, it makes sense for the aviation industry to have a response infrastructure in place, including the provision of counselling, for when they do. Even from the perspective of business sense, not having that side room at the airport to usher the waiting relatives into, and not having properly trained people to break the news would make an already bad PR situation ten times worse. If you were the CEO of an airline, would you want relatives in the arrivals hall finding out about a crash on their smartphones and then being told at the enquiries desk to go away? By the same token, every police station will have someone on duty who has been trained to go to someone's house and break the news that their husband/wife/son/daughter has been killed in a car crash beacuse, sadly, the statistics tell us that their services will be needed several times a month.
But in the cinema industry? I stand to be corrected, but AFAIK and if you discount WWII bombings, there has not been an incident that caused mass fatalities in a British cinema since the Glen Cinema disaster in 1929, and would guess that the time gap is pretty similar for the US. I think there's a limit to how far you can hold Cinemark responsible for what may have been a less than ideal handling of this situation, for the simple reason that it's never happened in this industry before.
quote: Brad Miller
There are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, but the only way to have a chance at stopping these sort of shootings are in fact licensed people (as in the public) packing (concealed or not, but preferably concealed). Just look at the TSA.
I can certainly see where you're coming from. Theatres are supposed to be welcoming places where customers go for a leisure activity, and so imposing a TSA-like experience on them would drive huge numbers of customers away. We put up with the TSA when we fly because we have no choice if we want to get to our destination. We do have a choice as to where we spend our leisure time, and the competition to theatres from home media is stronger than it's ever been. So x-raying or searching customers at theatres in order to prevent another gun massacre is not a realistic option.
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 01-09-2013, 01:15 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Stadium auditoriums always have at least two exits -- one or more in front, one or more in back (behind and under the stadium seating area).
A lot of stadium auditoria are built with a flat part followed by a stadium part. The main access to the auditorium is to the back of the flat part (with the additional exit next to the screen).
The trouble with this layout is that all of the stadium section (where customers prefer to sit) is behind both exit doors so they have to exit forwards, down the stairs of one or two aisles.
The plan below of a (proposed) new build cinema demonstrates this, the main public entrance to the complex is from the bottom of the plan. The stadium seats go over the toilets, storerooms etc. and partially over the corridor (concourse). There is no rear exit from any of the auditoria, the escape stair at the bottom is the only (non-ladder) access to the projection booth. The access from the corridor to the auditoria is cut out of the stadium area in the region marked with a triangle.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-09-2013, 01:55 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
There are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, but the only way to have a chance at stopping these sort of shootings are in fact licensed people (as in the public) packing (concealed or not, but preferably concealed).
Brad, let's go back to the Century Aurora 16 on the night of July 19, 2012, as three hundred or so people sit in a darkened Theatre 9 watching "The Dark Knight Rises." James Holmes goes out of an exit door adjacent to the screen at the front of the auditorium, propping the door open just so slightly, so he can re-enter the room with his arsenal. He opened the door, throws in a smoke bomb and starts shooting the place up, all while the theatre is still dark and the movie is still playing.
And since this is Colorado, there are ten people packing heat (as a former resident of Longmont CO, I'd say this ratio is even a bit low, but let's leave it for argument's sake) as they watch the movie. And let's say you are one of the ten people packing as you watch the film. All of a sudden, there's a bunch of smoke in the room and something that sounds like gunfire. What do you do? Do you just whip out your pistol and start shooting?
Hell no.
You don't know what's going on yet. You can't see through the smoke, so you don't know where the shooter is. You don't have a clear target. You can't tell how many people are between you and the shooter. And by the time the smoke dissipates, you can clearly see the shooter and you can take a clear shot, who knows how many people have been shot.
I like to use the following story when people suggest the answer to lowering gun violence is to have more people packing...
Two years ago yesterday, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot by Jared Lee Loughner outside a Safeway grocery store in a suburb of Tucson AZ. There were armed security guards on duty at the La Toscana Village mall, where the Safeway is located, and one of those armed guards was near Ms. Gifford when Mr. Loughner started shooting. Except the armed guard never fired a shot.
Why?
There was too much confusion and too many scared people running around not knowing what was going on, and because of everything, he never had a clear shot of Mr. Loughner. Others subdued the gunman, including Joseph Zamudio, who is a CCW holder and had a gun on him at the time of the incident, but chose to physically restrain Loughner instead of draw his weapon and risk injuring more innocent people.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2013, 03:32 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
While I'm generally in favor of at least one exit door at the back row, such a thing might open a can of worms in bureaucratic expense, like complying with ADA. The new theater might have to add an elevator or two into the design even if people are having to climb stairs to get to the top, back row of the stadium seated area. ADA might demand an area or two up top be cleared for wheelchair positions in addition to other areas below being reserved for them. Overall, such a thing will complicate the projection booth design.
Ummm, what projection booth? Theaters these days are trying to eliminate them and put the projector in the auditorium to save a buck, often making noise for the audience, making servicing ridiculously difficult or put the service technician physically at risk.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Tactically speaking, it's not really much better for would-be shooting victims to have a back door up at the top of the seating area as a means of escape. The stampede of people trying to get to one or two exit doors up top would create a juicy target for the shooter. All he has to do is concentrate his fire at those exits and watch the bodies clog the escape route.
Your logic is flawed. I understand the desire for a large target, but the closer a target is, the easier it is to hit it. Having everyone run to within 5 feet of you as they make their escape will damn near guarantee that you will kill every last one of them (unless you run out of ammunition). Having everyone pile out a rear door 100 feet away from you is a much more difficult target to kill all of them. MANY more people would survive. Remember, the killer isn't trying to put a bullet into "the audience as a whole", he is trying to put a bullet into "every person in the audience".
quote: Mike Blakesley
I think maybe I would have been inclined to just dive down between the seats rather than run toward the guy, but who knows?
Hitting the floor between rows of seats and playing dead is ABSOLUTELY the smartest thing to do here if you are defenseless to try and fight back. Even someone who may have a concealed firearm should do this as well if they don't feel they have a solid shot. Play dead briefly until the smoke clears enough or the guy walks past to go get more people in the upper rows then take a clean shot.
quote:
etc, etc, etc......Do you just whip out your pistol and start shooting?
Hell no.
You don't know what's going on yet. You can't see through the smoke, so you don't know where the shooter is. You don't have a clear target. You can't tell how many people are between you and the shooter. And by the time the smoke dissipates, you can clearly see the shooter and you can take a clear shot, who knows how many people have been shot.
That is an unfortunate fact of the situation. In this case I would do exactly what I wrote above, drop to the floor and play dead (but quickly get my gun out, disable the safety and "play dead" in a position that kept the gun concealed but would let me jump up quickly if the opportunity arose.)
Before someone says something stupid, in this scenario no I'm not "letting people die" while being a "coward". If there is smoke everywhere and no visibility, I am protecting myself so that I can hopefully delay just long enough TO get a shot. At that point, assuming the opportunity arose, I could defend myself and help protect the other people.
The Aurora shooting scenario isn't a good analogy to the grocery store example, but I can understand the point you are trying to make. Just because there were 10 people packing doesn't mean any of them got an opportunity.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-09-2013, 03:50 PM:
Leo -- I'm not saying they should have that kind of infrastructure in place. But in the time they took to make the decision to mail out free passes, they could have arranged for counseling. There are psychologists available who specialize in grief counseling. I would argue that even a single group session would have been more appropriate than the free passes. Even if family members decided not to avail themselves, they could hardly come down so hard on Cinemark for trying to do the right thing.
I also think that an appropriate course of action would be to analyze the event, identify security loopholes, come up with corrective measures, and then talk to the families about what is being done in an effort to reassure them (as much as possible) that this kind of thing won't happen again.
Will this please all of the families? Perhaps not, but it comes from a more genuine place than free passes. Free passes are what we give people who sat through a movie with picture or sound issues, or whatever. That's how we attempt to make up for "everyday" shortcomings. (And it costs us nothing.)
This is different. It is worthy of a more thoughtful solution. Cinemark should voluntarily "give until it hurts." Voluntarily.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2013, 08:25 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I also think that an appropriate course of action would be to analyze the event, identify security loopholes, come up with corrective measures, and then talk to the families about what is being done in an effort to reassure them (as much as possible) that this kind of thing won't happen again.
So tell them "this kind of thing won't happen again"??? As in your solution is to bullshit the victim's families?
About the best they could do is re-design the entire building and send them a private apology letter explaining all of the things they have done to this theater...and will be doing throughout the rest of their circuit to try and HELP PREVENT such an incident from happening again.
Of course they won't do that due to cost...that's why they chose the free pass route. Not only does it not really cost them anything, they profit when the deceased families buy concessions.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2013, 08:31 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
Cinemark should voluntarily "give until it hurts." Voluntarily.
If it can be proved that Cinemark's standard security practices are any different than other big chains in the area, I might feel agree with that. But either way, making them "give until it hurts" is just going to potentially make their prices go up.
quote: Brad Miller
About the best they could do is re-design the entire building
And even that won't guarantee it'll never happen again. The only thing that WOULD, is full pat-downs and metal detectors, and nobody wants to go that route.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-09-2013, 08:59 PM:
Brad, that's what I meant by "as much as possible" -- bad phrasing on my part -- your phrasing captures what I was trying to say. I think we are in agreement there.
Mike, I didn't say "make them give till it hurts," I said they should do it voluntarily. But, whatever, I think we just have to agree to disagree because it's clear neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-10-2013, 12:34 AM:
quote: Manny Knowles
Leo -- I'm not saying they should have that kind of infrastructure in place. But in the time they took to make the decision to mail out free passes, they could have arranged for counseling. There are psychologists available who specialize in grief counseling. I would argue that even a single group session would have been more appropriate than the free passes. Even if family members decided not to avail themselves, they could hardly come down so hard on Cinemark for trying to do the right thing.
I think we're basically agreed - they made the wrong call on this. My point is that, thankfully, neither they nor any other business in this industry has had any previous experience of dealing with a situation like this. The media coverage of this shooting did not mention any previous act of mass murder in a movie theatre, and after digging around on Google for 15 minutes or so (admittedly, not exactly painstaking research), I can only find evidence of one, in Iran in 1978.
So, if a major airline offered the relatives of crash victims 2,000 bonus frequent flyer miles and an upgrade to economy comfort on their next trip, I would absolutely want its CEO hung out to dry, because there would be absolutely no excuse for not knowing better: there have been hundreds of plane crashes in the history of civil aviation, and so the industry has almost a century of experience in dealing with the aftermath of them. I hope the lessons of this theatre shooting will be learnt, but, obviously, that the knowledge won't have to be used.
quote: Manny Knowles
I also think that an appropriate course of action would be to analyze the event, identify security loopholes, come up with corrective measures, and then talk to the families about what is being done in an effort to reassure them (as much as possible) that this kind of thing won't happen again.
As Brad said, that's not reassurance that can truthfully be given; all they can say is that the common sense things have been done to reduce the risk of it happening again. The bottom line is that a psychopath like that can strike anywhere, and if he hadn't been able to get into a theatre, he would probably have started shooting people in a supermarket, railway station or wherever.
Saying that there is cause for optimism is not the right way of putting it, but I think there is cause for hope. This incident was not (as far as I'm aware, at any rate) followed by reactionary media commentators trying to start a bandwagon along the lines that theatres are dangerous places, blah blah blah. Again, making the comparison with aviation, compare that with the hysteria that's going on about the Boeing 787 at the moment: the press and TV are on a 'this plane is a flying deathtrap' roll, even though independent industry experts are pretty much unanimously agreed that it isn't, and that in reality we're dealing with the teething issues that any fundamentally new plane is going to hit. Movie theatres have a longstanding reputation for being very safe places, and that reputation has largely, and deservedly, survived this shooting. Of course I agree that changes to the design of stadium auditoria to provide more escape routes would be a good idea, but my gut feeling is that reducing the risk of something like this happening again is more in the power of the medical and law enforcement professions than that of the film industry.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-10-2013, 06:14 AM:
Well stated. That works for me, Leo.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-10-2013, 12:12 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Ummm, what projection booth? Theaters these days are trying to eliminate them and put the projector in the auditorium to save a buck, often making noise for the audience, making servicing ridiculously difficult or put the service technician physically at risk.
My first reaction of seeing a digital projector hanging from the ceiling of a theater auditorium was "WTF." That was followed by "am I in a movie theater or a Buffalo Wild Wings location?" If someone designing a theater wanted to incorporate both a proper projection booth and 2nd floor customer passageway into the design he would have some interesting challenges.
quote: Brad Miller
Your logic is flawed. I understand the desire for a large target, but the closer a target is, the easier it is to hit it. Having everyone run to within 5 feet of you as they make their escape will damn near guarantee that you will kill every last one of them (unless you run out of ammunition). Having everyone pile out a rear door 100 feet away from you is a much more difficult target to kill all of them. MANY more people would survive. Remember, the killer isn't trying to put a bullet into "the audience as a whole", he is trying to put a bullet into "every person in the audience".
My logic isn't flawed at all when you consider the actual shooting distances and how people are forced to move through a movie theater auditorium.
All but the largest of movie theater auditoriums are relatively small. Distances of 100 feet? Anyone proficient with a mere handgun can hit targets the size of a person at 100 feet. That's just 33 yards. Rifles are far more accurate (and powerful) than handguns. Hitting targets 100 feet away with lethal accuracy isn't difficult to do with a rifle. Let's not forget the shooter doesn't have to do all his firing from the exit door by the screen. He can run to other positions in the auditorium.
It is easier to hit a target at closer distances. However, if everyone was determined to run down the stairs toward the shooter the crowd would at least have some outside chance of reaching and overwhelming the shooter. The shooter would be in trouble if he had to re-load. The survivors would jam his dry rifle up his ass.
If the crowd is running up the stairs toward an exit up top they'll be exposing their backs to the shooter and jamming together to get through that door. All he has to do is camp at the bottom of the stairs and concentrate his fire towards the door. He'll have no problem hitting targets. If everyone is running away from the shooter he'll have no problem at all swapping magazines to re-load. If the shooter likes, he can just start walking up the stairs finishing off people that were only wounded.
If a heavily armed shooter manages to get into a packed movie theater auditorium then a bunch of the people in the auditorium are screwed. It doesn't matter where the exits are located. The audience is mostly sitting ducks. The first instinct some people will have is to duck and hide behind the seats of the row in front of them. That's not going to make it easy for others to run to the stairs or aisles that lead to the exits. They'll be stepping all over other people trying to do so. Anyone trying to climb over seats toward any exit will expose themselves to the shooter. Some people will make a break for it and bail over the side of the stair well and drop however many feet it is the exit aisle below. The choice between a broken ankle versus getting shot at close range is pretty simple. The sheer panic would create a traffic jam at any exit. The shooter can concentrate his gun fire at those points or he can walk up the stairs, row by row, spraying bullets at the people still ducking for cover.
In a perfect world some of the audience members in that Colorado theater would have had concealed carry handguns (and actually know how to use them). If a would-be mass shooter is suddenly taking return fire from his intended victims it would be a game changer. The shooter would probably still manage to kill a few people, but not nearly as many as he would being able to fire into the crowd with impunity. The best defense is making sure a nut job like that doesn't get into the theater in the first place, which is no problem in a perfect world.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-18-2013, 07:10 PM:
Here is a newspaper article about the reopening of the Aurora cinema. It's now called the Century Aurora and the auditoriums have been designated with letters instead of numbers. The article is from DenverPost.com, but all I could find were pictures. I'll look more later when I have time and post a link then, unless someone beats me to it.
Century Aurora theater reopens with ceremony, showing of "The Hobbit"
POSTED: 01/17/2013 05:05:47 PM MST
UPDATED: 01/18/2013 09:05:16 AM MST
By Kurtis Lee
The Denver Post
Seated toward the front of Auditorium I, Pierce O'Farrill pointed to the walkway a few feet in front of him. "That's around where a SWAT team guy found me and then dragged me to safety," he said.
It had been almost six months earlier to the day, and O'Farrill returned to the renovated movie theater where he was shot three times in a mass shooting.
"This is weird, man," said O'Farrill, his eyes glancing around. "I'm glad to be here, and, obviously, I'm glad to be alive."
Hundreds attended a night of remembrance Thursday as the Century Aurora reopened its doors. The smells of fresh popcorn and the smiles of theater staff offering up soda and boxes of candy greeted those looking to heal.
Since the July 20 mass shooting where 12 were killed and 70 were injured at a midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises," the complex had sat vacant.
Many who entered Thursday were there, or had family present, that fateful night.
"This isn't only the place we lost Alex," said Tom Sullivan, whose son was killed in the mass shooting. "This is the place we also live. We love to come to the movies."
In the days leading up to the night of remembrance, officials with the city of Aurora said they distributed 2,000 tickets to victims, first responders, volunteers and employees from several metro-area hospitals.
Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan called the evening one that showed the resilience of a community forever changed after the massacre.
"Today, we take another step forward," Hogan told a theater packed with families, police and local politicians. "We must put aside our differences for a greater good and avoid the use of violence to solve problems."
Hogan said the city of Aurora had received "an outpouring of support literally from around the world."
"Now it is time to show the world who we are," he said. "Aurora is strong. Aurora is caring. We will move forward with hope and confidence of better days to come."
Gov. John Hickenlooper, who followed Hogan in delivering remarks at the 40-minute ceremony — which was followed by a showing of "The Hobbit" — acknowledged that not everyone will heal the same in a community forever scarred by the tragedy.
"Some wanted the theater reopened; some didn't," Hickenlooper said. "Certainly there's no right or wrong way of healing. ... For many here tonight, though, this is a part of healing."
Since the event was announced, several families of victims said they would boycott the reopening ceremony, calling it a "publicity ploy" by Cinemark — the theater's owner — to divert public scrutiny. They say that in the wake of the tragedy, Cinemark has never reached out to them and personally
offered condolences.
An August survey conducted by the city of Aurora found that a large majority of residents wanted the theater to reopen. In an open-letter response, Cinemark said it would comply and vowed to remodel the structure.
Tom Jenkins, who works in the nearby mall, said Thursday he wanted the theater bulldozed.
"I find it disrespectful" for the theater to reopen, he said. "In my view, it's like building a playground on a cemetery."
But for some, the night was important to the healing process.
"If it doesn't reopen, he (the gunman) wins. Plain and simple," Alex Milano, 19, who was in Theater 8 the night of the shooting, said before the memorial event.
Meanwhile, outside the multiplex, Eugene Hahn, 20, who was sitting in the second row when a hail of bullets rattled the theater, striking him in the hip and knee, said he wanted to return so he could see for himself how things had been renovated.
He said he and his girlfriend would stay for the screening of "The Hobbit" and likely would return for more movies.
"You could say that lightning doesn't strike twice," he said. "It may, or it may not. But you can get shot anywhere."
In the moments after the brief ceremony, Sullivan walked the aisles of the theater and thanked many of the police who arrived at the theater that night.
"It's been tranquil," Sullivan said after the short ceremony. "Being here brings comfort to me. And hopefully it brings some to others who attended."
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2