|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Save America's Cinemas
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic