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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 |  IP: Logged

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

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

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

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

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

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

 |  IP: Logged

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

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

The Uptown being a single screen theatre in Washington DC.

 |  IP: Logged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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