Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Save America's Cinemas

This is topic Save America's Cinemas 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=006785

Posted by Joseph Hernandez (Member # 6676) on 01-03-2013, 10:35 AM:

Our theater recently got involved with Save America's Cinemas.

They are a non profit fundraising group to help small theaters across the nation overcome the burden of going digital.

I thought I would help spread the word and get Film-Tech users' opinion on such a project.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-03-2013, 11:17 AM:

As I've said in other threads, this kind of crowdsourcing is no guarantee the building will be run effectively once it gets equipped with all these new toys. Theatres owners have had many years to find ways to fund the digital conversion, and have seen opportunities like the VPF program come and go. IMHO, if one is not digital by now, one is probably either stubborn, arrogant, stupid, cheap or a bit of each.

I like how companies like Christie, Harkness and Doremi are allegedly sponsors of this program. Since a new projector, screen and server are the main costs of changing over to digital, why don't these three companies skip the gimmick of a cheap looking website with endorsements by a bunch of C-list "celebrities" soliciting crowdsourcing funding, and just give these theatres "in need" the equipment now and set up long term financing for them?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Posted by Joseph Hernandez (Member # 6676) on 01-03-2013, 12:31 PM:

You make a good point about not being equipped to handle the new equipment.

For the past two years I have been researching digital cinema and there is a lot to. I've tried to get the owners to jump on VPfs or just simply finance but you have described them pretty well. [Roll Eyes]

I'm doing everything I can to make our theater work but I'm just a glorified projectionist with the title manager.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2013, 12:34 PM:

I would like to see an authoritative source for the "film will become unavailable in 2013" claim. John Fithian does not count.

Posted by Joseph Hernandez (Member # 6676) on 01-03-2013, 01:11 PM:

I would also like to know when the "deadline" is.

However my booker has had trouble getting me films because prints were not available for us. The most recent was we had to wait an extra week for Life of Pi. [Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2013, 08:45 PM:

Even Fithian has not "set a date." All he has ever done is repeat what was in the famous Fox letter, which did indeed say they "probably" wouldn't distribute film past the end of '13.

quote:
Since a new projector, screen and server are the main costs of changing over to digital,

You don't need a new screen to convert to digital. So you can knock that couple of thousand dollars off your estimates. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2013, 10:55 PM:

You have two dilemmas here:

1. 35mm print film stock will be coming to an end soon. Some of this has been announced already.

2. With more and more theaters converting to digital, fewer and fewer prints will be struck, which drives up the cost per print. As the cost per print increases, the studios will be unwilling to strike prints to send to the lower grossing theaters.

Either way, new 35mm prints will not be manufactured by the end of this year. Time for everybody to wake up.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-04-2013, 06:15 AM:

Brad--I do not dispute what you say, since you are obviously in the know about such things, but it looks odd when an organization whose entire raison d'etre is that '35mm film is going away in 2013' cannot provide an authoritative reference that states this.

One of the issues with being a non-profit is that they need to make it clear to the public that their cause is important. Right now, their web site does not do that. The whole thing looks sketchy because it is based on a statement that cannot be verified. I am not sure how they can get around this, but they could at least be honest and say something like "we expect that new movies will be unobtainable in 35mm by the end of 2013."

edit: grammar

[ 01-04-2013, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-04-2013, 10:54 AM:

I dislike the idea of a for-profit business soliciting donations to cover expenses, which is the approach some small theaters have taken. Unless the theater is operating as a non-profit charitable organization (and all the responsibilities that come with that designation), it's not very classy to put out the donation jar with the implicit or implied ultimatum that the theater will/may close if they don't contribute.

When you pay to go to a sporting event at a stadium, do they ask for donations to get a new scoreboard? Does the gas station you go to ask for money to buy new pumps? If a restaurant needs a new stove, do they ask their customers for an extra couple of bucks to cover the cost?

Churches do this when they have to replace a roof or install a new boiler, or some other expense that exceeds their budget. I get that, because they are a charitable organization whose primary purpose is to serve a greater good and they are (usually) registered as a 501(c)3 so donations are tax-deductible. Churches are also public to their members about their budgets and in many cases, the books are available for examination to guard against fraud.

Where is the accountability when a theater wants to raise $65,000 for a capital equipment expenditure? How are those donating sure that the equipment actually costs that much, and what guarantee do they have that if the goal is reached, the theater will stay in business for the forseeable future? What happens if only $30,000 is raised and the equipment is not purchased? Who gets the money?

Too many unanswered/unaddressed questions for my taste.

I think the Save Our Cinemas group has a noble pursuit. However, exactly how a donation helps the cause is unexplained, and I would be curious to know how much of every dollar collected is going towards the stated cause vs. "administrative costs."

There are 47 theaters on the list, so does that mean that each theater will get 1/47th of the money collected? If each theater has one screen, and each screen costs ~$50,000 to convert (to use an easy number), that means that almost $2.4 million will need to be raised (ignoring those pesky administrative fees and assuming that 100% of the proceeds to go the theaters).

The cynical part of me doesn't like this effort at all, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation.

I think it's great that Christie and the other providers have signed on as sponsors. Who knows what that really means when it comes down to it, though.

The way I would attack the problem of small theaters not being able to handle the capital costs of converting to digital cinema is to organize them as a group to leverage buying power. Not just in buying digital cinema equipment, but in every way. Small theaters have common challenges and common goals in most cases. It's only through organizing themselves that they can leverage better pricing and arrangements with suppliers, not just of equipment but perhaps other items as well. If someone representing a group of theaters came to me and asked for a better deal, I would definitely be interested in giving them discounts that would not be made available to each theater individually.

(It's quite possible that was already available via the CBG, so if it was, and these theaters didn't take advantage of those deals, they wouldn't be interested in any new deals either.)

The flip side is that if they want to solicit donations like a charity, they should turn themselves into a charity. Qualify for 501(c)3 status, put together a Board of Directors, and be accountable to the public that they now depend on for support.

You can't have it both ways in my mind. Either you're a charity or a for-profit business. It's not appropriate to ask for handouts when you're the latter. I'm open to having my mind changed, so I'm interested in hearing arguments to the contrary.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 01-04-2013, 12:21 PM:

If somebody was going to donate I would expect them to want the money to go to their local cinema, not split amongst a lot of other cinemas that they have never visited.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-04-2013, 12:22 PM:

More than likely, these theatres would need:

1) Digital Projector
2) Digital Cinema Server/Player
3) A New Sound System

There is also power issues that need addressed for the new equipment.

Isn't there such thing as being D.C.I. Compliant anymore?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-04-2013, 12:49 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
3) A New Sound System

In most cases, your current sound system is perfectly suitable with some minor modifications.

quote: Dennis Benjamin
There is also power issues that need addressed for the new equipment.

The biggest power draw in any projector is the lamp house. If you replace your current 35mm projector with a digital projector with similar wattage, why should there be power issues? Also, a server isn't really that power hungry. Sure, you need to look into it, but in most cases I guess it's not the BIG issue.

The industry is also moving ahead and prices will drop. Of course, that will not leave everybody out of the rain, but it will help to get more conversions going.

Barco recently introduced the DP2K-10Sx, this is a fully DCI compliant projector and integrated IMS with 2TByte of effective storage for screens of up to about 33ft for under $40K. I'm expecting others like NEC and Christie to come with similar offers, if there aren't already.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-04-2013, 02:48 PM:

Did digital just show up 6 months ago with the announcement of the soon end of film prints?
No! It first came about ten (10) years ago, about 8 years ago it was pretty obvious that it was coming and sooner than later. Those who chose to sit on their hands and make no plans will soon be run over by the digital locomotive. A couple hundred bucks a week socked into a saving or secure investment account would have done it but it's probably too late now. Non profits still could raise the funds to do it but for profits without deep pockets are screwed.
Why would anybody give cash to a for profit operation when the owner has already demonstrated a lack of foresight and willingness to move with the technology while there was plenty of time to do so.
The private owner isn't likely to give up his total control to a board of directors which even if made up of his personally selected friends and family will be impossible for him to manage. Eventually he will be ousted and he knows it.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 01-04-2013, 02:57 PM:

"When you pay to go to a sporting event at a stadium, do they ask for donations to get a new scoreboard?"

Yes. Almost every stadium/area/ballpark built since the early 1990s in the U.S. has been done so primarily with public funds pushed through on the explicit claim that "The team will leave and go to another city" if the citizens don't pony up the dough.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 01-04-2013, 04:00 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
Did digital just show up 6 months ago with the announcement of the soon end of film prints?

That's a really interesting question.

I'm one of a few projectionists that did the occasion shift in a non-profit that has been showing movies to raise funds for good causes, and the group has been doing this since around 1915. It works even until recent times as the ongoing costs are very small, the equipment was paid off years ago, so essentially, door take - (film costs + venue costs + very small overheads) = money for community causes.

Two things have upset this cosy applecart.

The first is a series of earthquakes that have had significant effects on most of Canterbury: our venue (a multi-purpose village hall) is closed because, although it survived the earthquakes, it is deemed to be an "earthquake prone building" and thus needs significant strengthening work (or to be flattened and replaced) before it can be reopened. So we are not showing movies a the moment.

The second gotcha is the coming of digital.

It's not that I (as the most electronic savvy of the group) didn't see it coming (see this post from about eight years ago), I was convinced by other locals and by folks on this very forum that it would be many more years away than I thought.

So, i suspect, in common with many groups like us, we have under-provisioned for the digital revolution. And the timing stinks because by the time we get our venue back (a couple of years) 35mm may already be a dead duck.

But the real point is this. Even before we were quaked out, we'd been running the numbers for digital, and the truth of the matter is that with 35mm one can operate on the sniff of an oily rag, and be financially viable with a very small scale operation, with average film-going rates and a small population. With digital the capital costs, the costs of servicing debt, and the need to replace equipment much more frequently break that formula I posted a the top; the numbers just don't stack up.

So I suspect it is the end for us, and we won't actually make our century as a functioning unit. A jar isn't going to make up the difference. The only thing that would make up the difference is more people coming to see more films, and going the whole hog with 3D etc. We've played those numbers too, and there is a theoretical possibility that by becoming a first run house, running seven days a week, taking on paid staff, and competing with the big boys in town (an hours drive away) we could make it work. But the bookers won't give first run status to another small cinema that is three hours drive away from the big boys, so they certainly wouldn't give it to us.

The end is nigh.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 5226) on 01-05-2013, 11:40 AM:

I thought I might add to Bill comments, that years ago I once worked for an aero club and for every hour of flying a small percentage of the money that was recieved went into a aircraft replacement fund.

If cinema owners had done the same thing, then over the years they would, at the very least be well on the way to cover the cost of digital conversion.

I always believe that if you dont plan is some way for the future then you wont have one.

Graham.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-05-2013, 12:54 PM:

quote: David Buckley
I was convinced by other locals and by folks on this very forum that it would be many more years away than I thought.

I'm wondering how that could be the case. Mid-level American chains (200-500 screens) like Rave were going all-digital back in 2006, with the largest (AMC and Regal) jumping in soon thereafter. The end dates for VPFs were known years in advance. The only way, IMHO, anyone could have been convinced it would be many more years away is if they stopped keeping an eye on our industry seven years ago.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-07-2013, 01:17 PM:

To follow-up on the Save America's Cinemas topic, I actually ran across mentions of the organization while processing information about some of the theaters on their theater list.

It appears that Save America's Cinemas is doling out the money in the form of grants that theaters can apply for, according to this article in the Pierce County Tribune (North Dakota):

quote:
The JDA has applied for a grant through "Save America's Cinemas," an organization that is attempting to raise $1 million to save small-town theaters.

If the grant is accepted, "Save America's Cinemas" would install the approximately $75,000 in equipment needed as part of a digital upgrade and train staff how to operate it.

The building also needs about $25,000 in electrical upgrades. Adding in another $22,000 in renovation costs would bring the project's total to around $150,000 if the grant isn't landed.

Depending on how one reads that, they're looking for $75k-$150k from Save America's Cinemas; which is a considerable sum even on the low end of that range.

$75k seems high for a single-screen operation, based on the discussions on Film-Tech, so hopefully that's just the list price being quoted. One would hope that, being an official sponsor and all, Christie would be extending some decent pricing as part of the deal.

Assuming the $75k to be real, if Save America's Cinemas is looking to raise $1M, they're only going to be able to help just over a dozen single-screen theaters. With potentially hundreds of such theaters that could use this type of assistance, that seems to be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

The best idea I've seen yet for a small theater to raise money by donations has been to use a site like Kickstarter. If I understand their terms correctly, if the theater doesn't make its stated goal, none of the donors have to pay what they pledged. At least that way, people aren't donating anonymously into a jar, where the money is gone no matter what happens.

After I wrote my first post here, I felt that I might have come across too harsh, but upon further reflection, I don't really think that's the case.

There was a valid point about the fact that sports teams do milk off the public every time they want a new stadium/arena, and I don't agree with that either. The arguments include that the local businesses make money from the events that are held, and the nebulous "status as a major league city" is important. I would imagine that movie theaters can stimulate the economy of the areas around them, especially in an area that is already depressed economically or in other ways.

The fact remains, though, that a theater that cannot sustain itself enough to have been able to save up for a cost that has been known for many years is probably not going to be able to sustain itself even after a capital investment has been made to buy equipment that does not materially improve the viability of the theater as a sustainable business. The same number of people will be coming to the theater after the digital cinema equipment is installed as before, so the core problem remains. A one-time cash investment so that the theater can continue to show movies because film isn't available any longer is not going to change that in a substantial way.

The only viable choice I can see in such situations is what theaters like the Centre Cinema in Rugby, ND did, and that is for its operation to be taken over by the community and run as a community service.

Does anyone know of a situation where a for-profit business has been in this situation, asked for a bail-out and someone has come through to make the one-time capital purchase, and then the theater actually stayed open? I would be interested in examining such a scenario, but I've not heard of one so far.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-07-2013, 04:51 PM:

With regard to sports stadiums, our local double A baseball franchise a couple years ago demanded a new stadium to replace the present one which is only 18 years old. Sure, it isn't perfect but when completed it was hailed as one of the best if not the best minor league park in the country. The 40 to 90 million bucks for the replacement would have to be ponied up by the City of Richmond and the 2 surrounding counties. In better economic times it would pose little problem but with tax revenues having fallen it's not going to happen any time soon. The team owners say that if they don't get their way within 2 years they will take their franchise elsewhere. IMHO it's time for localities to say Fuck You! to greedy demanding sports operations and send them packing to where ever is willing to piss away millions on sports arenas and stadiums.

The present stadium can be made remodeled and made like new for about 10 million but they say no, they've got to have a new one.
Greedy Bastards

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-07-2013, 07:08 PM:

Let them go!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-07-2013, 07:57 PM:

$75k probably includes more than just the projector--likely a new sound system and/or structural and electrical improvements to the building.

As for baseball parks (and convention centers)--the argument is that these facilities create jobs and bring in money that gets spent on restaurants, hotels, parking, etc. that would not otherwise come to the city, and that the taxes derived from all of this outweigh the "investment" made in the park. This is an argument that has not really been proven (if anything, the data suggest that it could be disproven), and I personally don't think that tax dollars should be invested in baseball parks any more than they should be invested in stocks or bonds or anything other than projects that directly benefit taxpayers. If we are going to use tax dollars to subsidize baseball parks, then we might as well use them to subsidize factories, too, although that will never happen.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-07-2013, 08:35 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
If we are going to use tax dollars to subsidize baseball parks, then we might as well use them to subsidize factories, too, although that will never happen.

Getting waaay off topic, but yes, we subsidize factories, especially here in the South where we are always competing to be the cheapest whore on the block.

And let's not forget how often eminent domain is used to take private property for these "public" purposes.

Posted by Ronda Fitzsimmons (Member # 1418) on 01-10-2013, 01:36 AM:

We've applied to Save America's Cinemas as well. Any possible help is appreciated. When we asked for letters of support from our customers, we had more than 700 in less than a day.

I thought I'd address some of the less informed comments from the original topic.

As independent second-run theatres, we've known digital is coming, and we've been saving for it. It came faster than anticipated, using red readers as a likely guide. And it's been, until fairly recently, so far out of reach financially that it didn't matter much. The new lower cost all-in-ones are the only possible option for us. Even then, we've had to really be super clear to the sales companies that we mean truly bare-bones. We've chosen Christie Solaria Ones, as the NEC's, although a tiny bit less expensive, are about half the lumens, which will matter if/when we can afford to add 3D.

We aren't eligible for VPF support. We've tried. The only company that was able to give us anything, offered such a small percentage of the required total, it would have put us out of business anyway. Perhaps you aren't aware that not everyone is eligible, nor are all offers the same. I can assure you if we had been able to get our systems paid for in full, by the film companies, we would have taken the deal. If we had been able to get even a quarter of our systems paid for, we would have seriously tried to make it work.

Best price I have right now on a bare-bones DCI-compliant system (including required 5.1 digital ready sound, install, wiring, UPS, Managed Switch, shipping, sales tax, and a few other things I've probably left out) is about $35,000 per screen. To accept the minimal VPF we would have qualified for, we were required to spend a minimum of twice that per screen. The VPF offered was a tiny fraction of the increase in cost. Our monthly payments would have been three times as much as they will be now. Assuming we can get financing, of course, as small businesses aren't on the top of lenders lists, no matter what you read. NOC was an additional requirement, if I'm remembering correctly.

I've raised almost half the amount we need to convert, through saving profits, selling my personal home, and putting out a collection jar. We only started accepting donations when a few of our customers asked us to, not because we expected them to pay for our equipment, other than through the normal cost of business. Digital will improve our presentation, and we are excited about that. The print quality of product available to second-runs right now is abysmal, when we can get prints at all. Going digital won't save us money, as it will most multiplexes, since it's really hard to cut payroll on one person. When we have two or more on, they are needed to serve customers and clean theatres. The two minutes or so threading and starting a show required by our 35mm systems won't mean less staff.

I'll be mighty interested to see how the first runs handle replacing the current systems when the VPF deals run out. Or perhaps it's not an issue since they can just cut payroll and jobs to make up the difference. In 5 - 8 years these new systems that are supposed to last 15 years (Really? Does anyone actually believe that?!?) will be toast along with VPF payments. Pretty easy to talk about how indy owners are stupid or poor planners when the film companies have your back, and basically have told everyone else - to bad, so sad.

DCI is unnecessary. We'd be able to make the conversion to digital - just as we have in our pre-show - for a small fraction of the price. Then we could also afford to upgrade as new and better technology comes out. There are existing commercially available and cheap protections already in place, and the minor difference between Blu-Ray and 2K isn't noticeable by the majority of our patrons on the 25' and smaller screens we run. I'd really love to see some cost/value considerations in the DCI specs for smaller screens, second-run, b and c run houses, etc.

I take my business seriously, and I've lost plenty of sleep working out the numbers for staying viable under the new requirements. We'll make it, thanks to foresight, willingness to sacrifice, and with help from a great staff, loyal customers, and groups like Save America's Cinemas. It makes good sense to wait until the last possible moment, as that means longer to save, less to pay for financing, and lower cost equipment that will last a little bit longer before it all has to be replaced again. Not in 25 years, but in less than 10. It would be super sweet if all the film companies provided a clearer "end" date, so we could know how long exactly we can put off the conversion.

In my little business alone, there's 27 jobs on the line, and hundreds of thousands of customers we serve a year, many of whom can't afford first run prices. RedBox truly is their only alternative.

I deeply appreciate both the financial assistance Save America's Cinemas is attempting to offer, and perhaps more importantly the public awareness of the thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs this change will affect, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of folks who may no longer be able to be a part of the movie-going public when their local small town or low price theater goes dark.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-10-2013, 09:38 AM:

Too bad you have to have 5.1 sound to be DCI compliant. Maybe there are a few small cinemas out there who could survive if they could do their system in two parts -- projector now, sound later?

I say this assuming there are still a number of "center/surround" systems out there in small-indie land. There are probably some where the patrons would be happy to see their local cinema stay open, even if they didn't get full 5.1 sound.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-10-2013, 01:32 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
More than likely, these theatres would need:
1) Digital Projector
2) Digital Cinema Server/Player
3) A New Sound System

You're proably correct if the the theater is fairly "new"

But I'm familiar with at least two older movie houses in my area
which had very bad booth ventilation that was "OK" for the old
35mm stuff, but that needed to install air condioning systems to
accommodate the new digtalcrap.

The cost of running new power, plumbing and putting in the AC
equipment & ducting ran up appx an additional $20k in expenses
per booth.

Plus, it cost another $9k (per AC unit) to install the
extra heavy earthquake bracing required by CA building codes
when mounting the air-conditioning units on the roof.

I too would like to know "where the money goes" if some of
these theaters fail in a few months, whick undoubtedly some
will. Most people don't understand that "non profit" is only
a tax status. The theater still has to make enough money]
to pay salaries, electric & water bills, inspection & licensing
fees, yada yada....

If a theater's financial condition is such that they have to
beg for money from the public, spending hundereds of thousands
of dollars isn't going to improve their balance sheets.

As much as it pains me to say it, many of them would be better
off closing their doors now & becoming a Walgreens or a
parking lot.