|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Wallowing in nostalgia
|
Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/889.jpg)
Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 09-21-2002 01:07 PM
Several on the forums seem to have a yearning for nostalgia. By the tone of their posts, "All megaplexes, bad; all single-screen thaters, good."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
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/30f.jpg)
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-21-2002 04:04 PM
I'm not quite sure what the original poster's point is.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
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/214.gif)
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-21-2002 05:19 PM
QUOTE: quote: No, no single screen theatre is ever going to gross $100,000 in a weekend
Not today, probably, but to put things in perspective, the Roxie Theatre in NYC pulled in approximately $350,000 during it's first week of "The Robe" in 1953. And during the blockbuster 70's and 80's, may first-run single screens in LA and NYC could bring in over $100,000 for a weekend. Of course movies play in far more screens today.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-22-2002 01:24 AM
Actually, it is certainly possible for a single screen theatre to gross $100,000 on a weekend. 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. ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/1351d.jpg)
Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-23-2002 02:58 PM
The vast majority of multiplexes are located in large metro areas where the corporate brass spend their time trying to out-tech and out-screen other corporate owned multiplexes (which is exactly what drove them into bankruptsy) instead of having their hand on the pulse of the community to learn what the populace wants to have in the way of entertainment and have all but ignored the deluge of complaints about high prices at the box office and concession stand, unfriendly staff, poor screen performance and dirty facilities (see this month's boxoffice magazine "Mailroom" column) as they use the "herd the cattle" technique of customer relations. 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. Bob The Old Showman
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-23-2002 05:29 PM
I got the general tone from Charles' post that he doesn't care if single screen theaters bite the dust and are replaced with cookie-cutter duplicated multiplex sites.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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|