Management at my theatre just purchased another location, and they use AAM's screenwriter, version 2.6.99 specifically. I'm exploring it a bit, but I can't find any documentation or anything like that at all. I was told they pay a lot for this software, but they do essentially everything manually still. Am I on the latest version or should I try to get ahold of someone to update? Does anyone have any documentation they could share with me?
-
-
Screenwriter is a fairly popular TMS program. Regal uses it. There should be some user manuals or you should be able to get documentation from AAM or your service techs. There is a 2.3.0 manual out there via a quick google. -
The venue I'm at uses Screenwriter TMS and scheduling software, although when
I look up its' properties, the version we've got is named "Screenwriter Plus",
Version 2.7.4-1952. I can only assume that's the current version because I know
the corporate people keep our stuff up-to-date, and I can recall them doing at
least one upgrade since we began using it about 2 years ago after dumping our
Sony TMS and scheduling software. (because Sony no longer supported it) and
installing all new BARCO laser projectors at the same time.
When transitioning to any new TMS/Scheduling system, there's a bit of a learning
curve when you start using it, and although I was a bit perplexed at first, I'm now
quite comfortable with it. It's been relatively trouble-free, and when a problem
does arise, it's almost always due to 'operator error'.
The Arts Alliance website isn't too informative, and a bit sparse of technical
info. The only manual I've ever been able to find online is for an older version,
but the operating info in it is accurate even for the current version I'm using.
The basics are still the same.
That manual is here>
https://kinotehnik.net/wp-content/up...anual-v1.1.pdf
But, quite frankly, I leaned more about the ins-&-outs of Screenwriter by having
a bit of online instruction from someone who had been using it for awhile. Once
I had grasped the basic operation and layout of the various screens, I learned
more by just 'playing around' with it and being forced to use it than I learned
from reading the manual.
> In checking which version we've got here, I see that our license expires at
the end of this month. That's something taken care of at the corporate level,
but I seem to remember that our last version upgrade occurred during a
license renewal, so I'll keep an eye open for that at the end of the month.Comment
-
Just a note on this software.
Most people in the industry will probably already know that Arts Alliance Media (AAM) had been experiencing financial difficulties and ultimately went through a distressed sale. Qube Cinema has now acquired the company.
It’s actually a somewhat unusual situation for the industry. Screenwriter, AAM’s TMS platform, should theoretically be well into the profitable phase of its lifecycle. Much of the heavy development investment happened during the VPF era, when the industry was transitioning to digital and margins were strong. At this point, the platform largely sits in a maintenance and incremental improvement phase, with only occasional adjustments needed as DCI players receive firmware updates or minor capability changes. Major new development in the TMS space tends to be relatively limited today.
Given that Screenwriter remains one of the most widely deployed TMS platforms globally, the financial issues are somewhat surprising and raise a few questions about the underlying business model.
Now that Qube Cinema has acquired the platform, it will be interesting to see how they integrate it with their broader ecosystem — particularly their content delivery and advertising networks. If they choose to invest in the product, we could see some meaningful evolution over the coming year.
My main hope is that Qube retains the existing Screenwriter team and continues investing in the platform. One area where Qube could particularly benefit from improvement is its DCI-Player web interface technology. While it was quite innovative when first introduced, the implementation was never especially polished and it has remained largely stagnant for years. The lack of modernization using contemporary web technologies is increasingly noticeable.
Meanwhile, most other DCI-player vendors have pushed heavily into modern web-based control interfaces, which today are significantly easier and more efficient for operators to use than they were even a few years ago.
So there are quite a few interesting dynamics at play here.
Comment
-
Well, put me in the group of people who didn't know about that, and it also explains why
their (old) website has a lot of 'dead' pages. The company I work for has a major deployment
of Arts Alliance SCREENWRITER and PRODUCER software in use. "Producer", among
other things allows the 'head office' to create trailer packs and in some cases complete show
playlists remotely and push them to individual venues. Their acquisition by QUBE might also
explain why, some time in January, I received a QUBE NAS server device,and was told that
I needed to install it ASAP. It now sits just above our "Deluxe Box" in our server rack and
we've been getting content delivered through it on a regular basis now.Comment
-
It is my understanding that AAM-Screenwriter suffered from its old company and how it allocated funds across its whole portfolio (other divisions) rather than any financial instability of Producer/Screenwriter itself.Comment
-
We rolled out Screenwriter and then Producer about three years ago, fully phasing out the old Sony TMS. We’re currently running version 2.7.5‑1983, which I’ve confirmed through their FTP as the latest available release. I stay in regular contact with the AAM team, and Steve’s understanding of the motivation behind the QUBE acquisition aligns with what they’ve communicated.
The acquisition has us optimistic that AAM will return to what they’ve historically done best—continuously enhancing their software based on real user feedback. Screenwriter on its own enables near‑full automation, and adding Producer introduces above‑store management capabilities that complete the automation workflow.
At this stage, our managers rarely need to touch content management tasks beyond verifying delivery and ingest completion. SPLs are generated and published automatically through Producer.Comment
-
And that's also precisely the problem. When my company first began rolling out Screenwriter
& Producer, I went online to the AAM website to learn more about it, and although they didn't
overtly state it, there was the definite undertone that it would allow its' users to eliminate
the number of 'technically skilled personnel" needed in the operations of a theater.
And that is exactly what I've seen happening at some venues. I believe that the only reason
that I'm still around is that at my location, we do a lot more than just 'show movies'. We host
numerous public and private screenings and premiers and corporate events, all of which
require some sort of 'manual intervention' in the form of lighting and microphones, etc,
that really can't be automated or run remotely, since schedules or show-flows often need
last minute changes at the whim of a client. We also run a decent amount of 35/70mm film
using 2-projector changeover, which also can't be handled remotely or by a manager.
My original ScreenWriter epiphany occurred about two years ago. I don't know if they've
changed their marketing 'talking points' since then. But when I first asked a supervisor
about the software's ability to allow totally remote scheduling, ingestion, and show
management, thus eliminating those tasks at the local level, the reaction I got was
a few moments of stunned silence when he realized that I had figured out "which way
the wind was blowing.' There has definitely been tech-staff downsizing, and a few techs
are running between two (and maybe more) venues.
There's nothing wrong, with Screenwriter or Producer and I have no personal
problem with their product. It lives up to all their advertised claims. But, there was
an undeniably 'anti-labor' tone to the way they marketed their products. It also doesn't
help my attitude in that I admit that I come from a Union background, where managers
have no business handling equipment, or even being anywhere in a projection room.
(The exception would be for those of you who own and manage your own venues- -
- -it's your place, you can do what you want and there's no problem with that. )Last edited by Jim Cassedy; 03-11-2026, 10:54 AM.Comment
-
I’ve used Screenwriter a little, and I know ACE-TMS very well as I support it.
ACE-TMS is a good system, very solid, but in my view it is somewhat over-engineered, which can make it harder to use. When issues arise it often requires very knowledgeable engineers to resolve them, sometimes even involving live database queries to repair problems. That is what I mean by over-engineered, powerful but complex.
Screenwriter, on the other hand, has long been considered one of the most respected TMS platforms in the industry, and many cinemas find it easier to use operationally.
That said, both systems are showing their age.
ACE-TMS can be technically complex to maintain, while Screenwriter has not seen significant modernization in recent years and still relies on a number of deprecated technologies such as Python 2.
Personally, I would not say one is better than the other, they are simply different approaches to solving the same problem.
However, I imagine Screenwriter users would welcome seeing the platform move forward and modernize over the coming years.
As mentioned earlier, I suspect the financial issues discussed were likely structural business issues rather than problems with the products themselves. In theory these platforms should generate reliable revenue, because cinemas effectively cannot operate without maintaining their licenses, if the system stops, the cinema stops, even for the largest operators.
At the same time, the DCI ecosystem is relatively mature, and there has not been a huge amount of new technical development in the standards these systems are built around.
From an external investment perspective, the cinema technology sector is often viewed as a stagnant or even contracting market, which naturally limits the level of outside investment.
In that context, Qube’s acquisition makes strategic sense. It allows them to leverage their existing global footprint and expand their operational ecosystem, which explains why they would be willing to take on the associated debt.
Comment
-
That's not over-engineered. If anything that describes something that's under-engineered and buggy.sometimes even involving live database queries to repair problems. That is what I mean by over-engineered, powerful but complex.Comment
Comment