$35 tickets for luxury movie theater

The Philadelphia Business Journal mentioned theater with 8auditoriums of 18 to 40 seats each, an Australian concept, would be included in the “American Commerce Center”, a proposed super tall skyscraper at 18th & Arch in downtown (Center City) Philadelphia.

Obviously, that theater would be from this same company.

The Philadelphia building is seeking office & other tenants, before a decision is made to build it.

that might be true for 1960s Road Show flicks, but I don’t believe it would be true for 1975 or later.

Prove it! cite cost, city, and back it up with newspaper ads showing it. We will then get out our inflation calculators….

If the place ain’t stockpiled with 70 foot screens or larger in each auditorium, why even bother? I’m not paying $35 bucks to see Harry Potter on a screen the size of my PC monitor!

According to the CPI calculator, a $3 movie ticket in 1975 (which would have been on the upper end for first-run, IIRC) would be $11.80 today.

Personally, I’ve vote for all those who do nothing but gripe about seeing movies today, drop off this website!

You cocoon yourselves at home, and don’t join a community of people.

Peter showed above that movie ticket prices aren’t $26 (so I guess I do read, Longsilandmovies- your mere saying so doesn’t make it true!!) just as his movie theater, and many others nationwide, prove that some historic cinemas can survive.

Lots of places charge too much, including restaurants, sports events, legit theater & culture, but they don’t lack for patrons.

So what is going to stop Mr. & Mrs. Joseph P. Yuppie from paying their $35 (plus $25 for premium concessions?) each and still forgetting to turn their cell phones off and/or text messaging and talking throughout the movie? Ordering food and drinks and having them delivered and paid for during the show sounds a little disruptive to me too. Then there is the negative effect on one alcoholic drink too many on some people. From my multiplex experience it’s more than just rowdy teenagers who make for a miserable movie going experience nowadays. Rude, inconsiderate behavior seems to be spread across the whole spectrum of age and class…or maybe I’ve just been patronizing the wrong multiplexes!

In Washington D.C., AMC Mazza Gallerie 7 (formerly General Cinema) has two screening rooms that are “Club Cinema” with leather seats and a full-service bar (only patrons 21 and older).

The Washington Post information (perhaps out of date) has adult ticket at $9.50 for the regular auditoriums. $12.50 to enter the Club Cinema on weekend evenings ($8 for seniors). During the week, tickets for the Club Cinema are priced the same as regular tickets.

Now, that doesn’t include waiters bringing food to your seats or parking your auto for you, but does include the right to “spirits” at your luxury leather seat.

Sounds like a better bargain to me.

We’ve beaten the topic of how to save on admission prices to movie theater going to death haven’t we? You’ve got bargain matinees, movie chain club card memberships, discounts at both AAA and Costco, etc etc. If theater refreshments are too high, eat before/after the show, or sneak in your food and drink. I do it on those times when necessary.

I wouldn’t pay $35 for a movie ticket for a more intimate setting. Even if by some drug/drunk induced reason that I would pay that much (and, btw, I do not partake in either) I’d expect live pre-show and post-show entertainment, a seven course gourmet meal, full body massage and theater seating in a select-comfort soft leather couch. :D

Being a resident of the Seattle area, I have visited this theater many times in the past. It was orginally built by Loews/Cineplex and it was one of their best designed and run operations in the Puget Sound market. Screens are large and slightly curved, and the seating in the original layout ranged from about 125 to 300.

I would imagine that the 300 seat house will seat 40 patrons. That’s a lot of space per person, so I would think that a major selling point will be privacy and the abundance of space.

I think this idea will work IN THIS LOCATION. Redmond Washington is the home of Microsoft and there is a lot of disposable income just waiting to be spent at an upscale operation such as this. The theater is located in an upscale “life-style” mall, and the mall managers are looking to bring in even more of those dollars.

But for this to work, Village/Roadshow better do the following:

1) Book it smart, meaning stay away from titles such as National Treasure 2 or College Road Trip. Titles like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men and the like will do well.

2) The food better be good. The greater Seattle restaurant scene is recognized as one of the finest in the country, so there’s plenty of competition in that area.

3) Hire union projectionists. If I’m going to pay $35 for a ticket, I want a first-class operation. Union projectionists aren’t a 100 percent guarantee, but the likelihood of a professional presentation is certainly greater.

4) No advertisements or silly slide shows. This should be a no-brainer, but one never knows…

The serious moviegoer in me can’t wait for this to open, but my wallet may have something to say about it. I’ll certainly check it out at least once and report back here. By the way, I don’t have a lot of disposable income.

In the end, I suggest that everyone keep an open mind about this concept. To compare ticket prices is grossly unfair, since we’re talking two totally different business models that both just happen to show movies.

And TheaterBuff1, not sure what you’re getting at with the comparison of this concept with watching a film in first class on an airplane. 40 people in a theater originally designed for 300 tells me there’s a lot space available, certainly a lot more than a first class airplane cabin.

I cant believe people would be willing to spend that much on the type of garbage that comes out of Hollywood. Im sorry, but I wouldn’t pay $3 to go see “Daddy day care” or “Bee movie”… let alone pay $35. Plus, with the inflated ticket prices, you would think they would be able to hire a contractor who actually takes care of their workers. Yes, this ritzy theater is slated to be built by contractors who exploit workers… just one more reason I will stay away from this atrocious blight on society.

Just as in every bsns you have your good and bad.I do believe most areas of the country have some really good theaters.FIND A GOOD THEATER AND SUPPORT THEM.

I really dont think people have an idea what it cost to run these places..My 3 screen averages $3,000 mo in electric and over $10,000 in payroll..Add in rent ,taxes ,garbage,insurance,phone,ads,repairs,fire system upkeep,cleaning crew,equipment….The average theater take on a ticket $3.50 after film rental and taxes….

The fact that ticket prices have not keept up with inflation is one reason some theaters are in trouble.

That being said there are a lot of crap theaters out there but there are a lot of good ones….

You know…this new “Gold Class” concept may be the thing to cause the studios to recreate “Roadshow” versions of their high level titles. If they’re smart enough to make all the screens at least 60-70 feet, get 70MM projection capability, and cut a deal with the studios to offer the big ticket titles (Iron Man, Indy 4, The Dark Knight, etc.) in extended versions presented in 70MM (and issue the standard issue 35MM versions to the megaplexes, that MIGHT justify me spending $35 bucks to come here…

OK, who tricked both the Seattle Times and CinemaTreasures into this April Fool’s joke?

“But right now the way I see it, with few exceptions, we’re not going to see the great theaters again unless another Great Depression hits the U.S. — followed up with a leader with the stature of an FDR to lift us out of it once more…”

…and you can remove expectations…and reduce awareness of the world and Life in general…bring back true isolation practices…and people are prepared to go backwards. Good luck with that.

Are you actually serious in this comment? That not only do you believe that were all the factors lined up as you suggest (a fantasy if I ever heard one), but that people in general would want this? Do you put so much value on ‘what used to be’ that you can envision a return to those times? Your ‘great moviegoing experience’ only existed when it did because of the contemporary context: the movie palaces, the other entertainment options available, and most importantly, in general, a much simpler Life lived.

A ‘Great Depression’ wouldn’t provide the necessary backdrop. A cataclysmic event might…but honestly, if that were to happen, I hardly think that a ‘great moviegoing experience’ is going to be anywhere on the agenda.

Oh, wait; your suggestion was a late April Fool’s Day joke, right? : )

My bad.

I would not call Imax a gimmick no more or less 70 mm…

View link

LIM – that Cinedom looks exactly like the type of movie theater nightmare I have spent a lot of effort avoiding. Do they have a ferris wheel and merry-go-round in there, too?

Yes, schmadrian, you’re correct. But think of this analogy as a comparison: if you were to go to your local fast food restaurant (i.e., the multiplex) in the middle of a crowded city, you would likely find a more rowdy and inconsiderate class of people. If you were to go to a smaller, fancier restaurant (i.e., the small movie theater, or what’s left of them), you’d likely experice a better, more well-behaved class of people. So yes, for that reason, I avoid multiplexes because of the people they generally attract.

Architecturally, I don’t have an opinion on multiplexes one way or the other. The design of many of them don’t exactly blow my mind.

What about the film distributor?

Some cinemas in Britain split the price by including snacks. (e.i.– 6 pounds for your ticket, 4 pounds for a glass of champagne.) This way film rental percentages were limited to the ticket price.

My last post was written from the perspective of seeing the current U.S. economy as one of none other than pillaging, while I am of the belief that pillaging cannot be carried on forever. I believe it to be a laws of physics impossibility. It should also help to understand that that comment was written from the perspective of residing in a city — Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — that’s being pillaged. And that I won’t try to argue can be carried out to full completion, and is currently in the process of happening. But the duration of what it takes for that and forever are two different things. In the face of that, with it being noted that the author of this Cinema Treasures news page is also a resident of Philadelphia, the small but luxurious 40-seat theater is the best that can be hoped for in this city for now. Either that or have your own private home theater system.

The pillaging of Philadelphia was preceded by the pillaging of the many regions that surround the city, all of which had been primarily rural before or still in their natural state; though in that case they were pillaged in a totally different way — rapidly developed in a way most becoming of a city, but not areas best suitable for farming or kept as nature preserve.

Pillaging produces wealth. There’s no arguments against that. But it cannot produce wealth indefinitely. Which is how I look at the whole matter. And I go further by saying that if it gets carried out to full completion, that marks the end of us, ALL of us. Philadelphia is such that it can be pillaged out of existence completely, and the rest of the world won’t even know it’s missing. It’s already happened to a large extent. But the pillaging of places outside of Philadelphia — where most of the rest of you are based — is a different story completely. Regarding the Cinedom, for instance — and I’d be curious to know where it is — what was there before that theater was built? Was it a brownfield development? Or a greenfield development? For before I can pass any sort of judgement on it, I have to know that first.

As for Philadelphia, if not for the way it’s currently being pillaged, it could serve as the vitally needed way out further down the road. Trouble is, Philadelphia’s not its own boss right now. Rather, it’s being bossed around by those from outside who “know better.” That is, people who cannot see their own futures relying on whatever becomes of it. They have forgotten that this is where it all began, and where their fate ends if it ends. And we’re not too far from that right now.

Charleston where? As it’s not listed in Cinema Treasures.

As for my favorite theaters in the U.S. right now, that is, in terms of theaters that are up and running as they should be or are in the process of getting properly restored, they include the Uptown in Chicago, the Avalon Theatre on Catalina Island in California, the Winter Garden in Florida, the Hershey Theatre in Hershey, PA, the State Theatre in Easton, PA, the Majestic in Gettysburg, PA, and the Roberts Orpheum in St. Louis, MO. Not in alignment with any sort of pillaging on the one hand, they all seems to be securely safeguarded from such on the other. These are the “few exceptions” I was referring to in my earlier post.

Ah, THAT Charleston. But that said, it’s not the image of Charleston, SC I so like to think of, with the beautiful old antebellum architecture, Spanish moss and so forth. Meaning I sure hope this enormous Cinedom didn’t rise up in the place of that!

As for my not having any multiplexes on my list, no, of course not! I can’t stand the monsters! With me it’s single-screen theater all the way. For I reason, when a theater has several auditoriums rather than one, something has to suffer somewhere in the compromise. And me, I’m too spoiled with having grown up with single-screen theaters to make the crossover to that. And that’s still the case when I want to take in a movie, even though they’re very hard to find now. I.e., rest assured that if the 40-seat “luxury” theater idea catches on I won’t be patronizing any of them.

In your case, have you had much exposure to well-run single-screen theaters?

Obviously you’ve had some very good exposure to single-screen theaters, while all the ones I grew up with I clearly miss. It’s a shame now that theaters in many places have to be overwhelmingly intimidating fortresses if they hope to survive. For there’s something very unreassuring in all that with regards to the times we’re living in. You wonder, okay, so when does the other side of all this come? While others, it seems, are terrified of that other side ever making a comeback.

It’s funny, you refer to the single-screen format as “old theater,” whereby I see it as just the opposite. To me, better is in advance of that which is worse. And to be sure, I have never been to a multiplex where I felt compelled to exclaim. “Wow, the old single-screen theaters of yore were never anything as good as this!” I know that there are some theatergoers who do feel that way, who swear by the all-new stadium-style seating, the greater choice of movies to see, the elimination of the fancy decor and so forth. But I just have to look at them and say, gee, how shallow. How depressing. For it’s clearly a society going backwards, not forwards.

Take all those single-screen theaters I listed in my earlier post — the only exception being the Majestic in Gettysburg, PA which has more than one auditorium (although, thank God, the main one has been kept fully intact) — and imagine if they were to be divided up into multiplexes, would that in any way be describable as a “marked improvement,” a “betterment” of what they had been before? I know there’s the idiots who would say, “Oh yes, yes!”, but aside from them. That is, looking at the matter accurately, would it be a “marked improvement”? And I think the answer is pretty much a resounding, “Obviously not!”

I’m not against individualism, and people wanting to have their individual tastes be satisfied, which is precisely what the multiplexes are geared for. But I feel society also needs the theaters that unify people as one. For example, when the movie ROCKY came out in 1976, it came just on the heels of when Philadelphia, PA’s industrialized areas fell into a state of total collapse. At that time I went to see it in a single-screen theater in Philadelphia. And afterwards the whole audience stood up and gave a thunderous ovation. There were tears in the eyes of many, including myself, even though I personally was not cut out for the blue-collar industrial way of life. Yet I could feel in that moment a unity with those who were, but who were having that industrial way of life — which had made Philadelphia great — swept out from under them. Had I seen this film in a multiplex, no, the experience would just not have been the same. And most certainly not had I seen it in a 40-seat “luxury” theater. With the industrial collapse at that time, so went the single-screen theaters, too…

…Along with the sense of unity.

THEATER BUFF VERY WELL PUT….SCHMADRIAN VERY WELL PUT….

When i use the word old i mean age of building..

We just finished a large renovation of my theater (3 screens)My goal was to keep the feel of the way it use to be when i grew up at the movies.
The number one rule was each auditorium must have its own look.No cookie cutter look.Each theater has different seats ,wall covers carpet.
I would love to find a single screen theater that i could my part and keep open..The hard fact is 90% chance it wont make money or break even.

The overhead is so crazy to run these places…

My weak point is i am not a good writer so i get killed in my arguments on this forum.

Schmadrian, I think the point that was being made, at least what I got out of it, was that here was a hometown story, being shown in a grand theatre, to hometown Philadelphia people. The overall effect, brought the audience to their feet giving a standing ovation to a film. I’ve seen that occur in some of my presentations, but only when the screening was accompanied by a guest, either a star or producer or director, etc., who was involved in the making of the film. This was more like applauding the story and its setting – Philadelphia.

As I’ve often said, it’s an entirely different experience seeing a film in a darkened room with 700+ strangers. Comedies are funnier, horror films are scarier and dramas are much more intense. That’s a value added benefit to seeing films in a theatre, on the BIG screen, in a near church-like, reverent setting that can’t be replicated in one’s home regardless the size of the TV screen.

Then too, as just mentioned, the setting plays into the experience, hense, art houses win out consistently. And the more the audience is there to enjoy the film, rather than talking or texting, the better.

Longislandmovies, that sounds like a very interesting project you’re working on, a 3-screen theater with each auditorium uniquely different from the other two, while I certainly hear you when you say “The overhead is so crazy to run these places…” To help reduce this somewhat, have you switched over to a geothermal heating & cooling system or considered doing so, along with having such things as roof-mounted solar panels to help reduce energy costs further? I also believe — long term, at least — that going fully digital can help reduce overhead, not to mention having an L.E.D. marquee and movie poster display cases. In my own experience the biggest problem I had with dealing with overhead was trying to do the right thing in the wroooong place, and by that I mean the politics of that particular place. That is to say, there’s a very assured reason why the city of Philadelphia — which once could be described as “the city of theaters” — is no longer such. The only exception is Center City Philadelphia, and that’s with regards to live performance venues only. A city that once had many movie palaces in its downtown portion now has not a single one, as in politics. What more can I say?

Meantime, AlAlverez, please forgive my oversight. For clearly both the Ziegfeld and Radio City Music Hall should’ve made my favorite-theaters-at-the-present-time list, while I should make a point to familiarize myself with the other theaters you name.

And to Schmadrian, it’s uncanny, but your statement, “To me, if that’s what it takes, the show’s over already,” mirrors the very thing I told someone last week, although it not having to do with theaters per se. Rather, it was in the context of how both Donald Trump and two casino corporations are preparing to build on the Philadelphia Delaware riverfront soon and are likewise pushing to be able to build on submerged Delaware River land with their projects, while naturally environmental groups are decrying it. And right now as to whether they will be able to or not to a large extent is up to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I got a form e-mail from one of the environmental activist organizations the week before last urging me and others to contact the Corps to voice our strong objections while at the same time it asked that we please be polite and respectful. And I said, if we have to be polite and respectful then the battle’s been lost before it’s even begun. For that is so naive. Could you imagine, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deciding in favor of the environmental activists over Trump and the two casino corporations because the environmental activists were polite and respectful? It just doesn’t work that way.

But now Schmadrian, in the context where you used that statement in so many words, I have to disagree. Movies shown in a well-run single-screen theater are a very effective way of unifying people to a cause, and I see nothing in the nature of “the battle’s been lost before it’s begun if that’s what it takes” in my saying that. Movies are a very effective, powerful way of clarifying a cause, and can go a long way in insuring the outcome of the battle is victorious rather than a dud. Of course movies alone cannot win the battle. But they can enflame people to rise to the challenge of achieving victory as opposed to defeat. It’s people who win battles, not movies. But movies can play a big part in peoples' achieving that goal. I have seen this happen. And I’ve also seen people give up all motivation when not having that stimulus. Ironically, I’m seeing that right now here in Philadelphia — once can-do city, but which appears to be no more.

So.

Is there any point in me looking forward to hearing yours, or anyone else’s propositions as to ‘How We Might Not Have Ended Up in This State, Cinema Treasures-wise’, or should I assume that people are more content to moan and sigh than to imagine a better way?

And as for what you’re referring to regarding ‘unifying people to a cause’…give me some examples. Not from the 40’s when film could -arguably- be seen as an effective way to unite nations during war, but NOW. In today’s world, with today’s values, today’s mindset, today’s isolationist, cocooning ways.

LOL!

Thanks for that, Al! Nicely put.

AL I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY………..

NO country—Imagine how scary it would be to find 2 million and enjoy spending every penny of it.
Atonement-Imagine how scary it was to pay $8.50 for this piece of crap.
300—Enjoy the nudity,imagine what it would be like to be #301..
Hannah —i imagine its every girls dream to be a super star and scary when it really happens….

Atonement was one of the worst pics of 07 in my opinion……sorry..
We were offered the pic exclusive and turned it down .I just could not do it to my patrons.Also one of the worst reviews from the Ny Times.

long: Don’t apologize for your opinion. However…

Seriously; if you think that ‘Atonement’ was one of the ‘worst pictures of 2007’, then I’ve got a list of about fifty flicks that were FAR ‘worse’. No…make that 100.

Seriously.

I think I know how we ended up this way…

In an inflation economy where other leisure competes with movies, the marketing noise has become so cluttered that it too expensive to get your picture noticed. The producers aim at getting the film made with the most common denominator that will attract the biggest crowd with the smallest effort. You also need to money to come in fast since the theatrical run must cash in quick before the theatre pulls the film, piracy kicks in, or the DVD comes out and kills the box office anyway . It is “high concept” as an art form. No one has time or money to nurture a film’s long run, least of all the exhibitor. The single screen palace must therefore make way for a “longer tail” of more generic products.

You do not need to work as hard on selling a Tyler Perry movie as you do “Atonement“ because the audience already knows what they will get from Tyler Perry. Since the core audience (15- 24) does not read the newspaper every day and have short attention spans, you must rely upon TV teasers, mobile phones and the internet to find them. If your audience is over 25, you also face a product drought from January to August. Consider a high concept formula movie for older people (“The Bucket List”) and you also get a mediocre movie for an audience starved for a movie with meaning.

The core movie audience, and in some cases their older counterparts, only go to the theatre four to five times a year. They bring all their electronic toys, short attention spans and the same bad habits they developed in their living rooms with them.

Of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture I felt “Atonement” was the least deserving. It was sold as a Jane Austin novel but there was no love story or any innocence in there. I paid to see a “Ryan’s Daughter” type tragic love story but instead got a horny snobby rich girl who sleeps with the help. Their improbable eternal love gets interrupted, not by the first World War mind you, but apparently by the “c” word, which makes an unlikely appearance in the early 20th Century. Talk about marketing to the masses!

If you look at the grosses, not enough people bought it and many of those who did talked on their phones and each other while watching these reprehensible characters lives unfold. At least the characters in “Michael Clayton” and “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country For Old Men” announced their evil.

Keep disappointing your audience and that age group will disappear even further.

‘Atonement’ wasn’t sold as a ‘Jane Austin’ (sic) novel', it was an adaptation of an Ian McEwan novel.

And honestly, a way-too-literate piece of film for the mainstream American filmgoing audience.

It that makes me sound like a snob…I am. But then I’m also a ‘writing for the masses’ novelist, so go figure. “I calls ‘em as I sees 'em.”

If the Ian McEwan novel did not reach the masses I am sure the novel has better character development than the film. The movie distributor sure tried to reach the masses. At one point “Atonement” was booked into 1400 theatres in the US market to predictably poor results. I consider it “arthouse lite”. Shallow crude entertainment that looks classy.

Having spent most of my career in exhibition I have seen the changes. Theatres have been amazingly able to adapt to their audience in order to survive in the long run. Snobbery aside, consider how many palaces have been kept alive by kung fu, blaxploitation, porn, Bollywood and Mexican action movies. Thousand of others made it on popcorn and cola alone. Outside the US screen advertising is also most lucrative. Few have been able to survive by taking the high road. It is the economics of Hollywood that fail us, not the public.

I still go the movies and I like multiplexes. I also watch many movies at home. I find less interesting new ones every year at the theatres but mostly great ones I missed on DVD from before I was born. They are the ones that keep me going back to my local 25-plex looking for more. Not the food, valet parking or the prices.

Schmadrian writes: “But I have to tell you: your ‘Titanic’ analogy lost me entirely. First, I don’t get what the ship represents…and secondly, what does it matter what you’ve ‘learned’ if you’re going to die? There are no lessons learned that will be carried on for ‘the next time’. Instead, all there really is to do is to listen to the band play…and complain about the damned iceberg.”

The “ship” represents Philadelphia, PA in my last post, or on the grander scale, the United States itself. And not everybody died as a result of the Titanic’s sinking, including those who were on the voyage and managed to escape. Hence how it was possible that the existence of luxury cruise liners did not end with the Titanic’s sinking. Rather, in this regard, the Titanic represented a whole new beginning rather than an ending — with great lessons having been learned from the first attempt at this as it were.

Regarding Philadelphia, yes, as a matter of fact, as it continues sinking, I am listening to the band playing, and I’m liking that much of it. And regarding the icebergs, I’m seeing them for what they really are, which is hardly the “enemy.” For it wasn’t an iceberg that sunk the Titanic; it was man’s own arrogance. A false belief in one’s own invincibility against the bigger picture — which, if you don’t know, is nature herself. And this beief in one’s own invincibility is not just a flaw here in Philadelphia at the present time, but all over the U.S. right now. Or would you have us believe that Katrina caused the New Orleans disaster? That is, who among us is barking up the wrong tree?

Philadelphia right now — as it is with many other places in the current U.S. — is being boxed into a position where it has to think that man is right and that nature is wrong. Politically speaking, Philadelphians are being given no other choice. And sorry, but I’m not going to start up a theater on those terms. But of the theaters of yore as I watch them go down here in the face of that twisted thinking, I’m taking notes constantly and salvaging what good ideas I can. Maybe for here at some future date, but for now, for elsewhere. There’s the analogous drawing of the small-size fish about to be devoured by a mid-size fish, and behind that, a big-size fish about to devour it, and that’s the way I look at things. That’s how I play my hand.

I don’t know if that’s true of all of us, Schmadrian. In my case, I remember when this or that strange event happened questioning it at the time, while others were just falling for it hook, line and sinker. Does that somehow make me a “guilty partner” to what happened? For I don’t quite see it that way. I can remember questioning things and also questioning why others weren’t questioning these same things. Take one of the great single-screen movie theaters I grew up attending for instance, which this link shows an interior shot of — View link

All the years I was growing up it was run tastefully and impeccably and I spent much of my childhood seeing movies there. But then weird politics entered the equation, namely, a new Philadelphia mayor by the name of Frank Rizzo, there were some major demographic shifts, and suddenly it stopped being managed the right way anymore. As in, what gives with that? And there were no answers to the question. Rather, it just started being run into the ground as if that was “right and proper,” while believe me, I DID question it. And today that once magnificent neighborhood theater is now a stupid bank in a place where there are already too many. And right before that it was a stupid drugstore in a place where there already were too many. And when this transition occurred, by golly I DID question it, the proof of that being seeable at the Cinema Treasures link, /theaters/8257_0_2_0_C/

So rather than just staring at the screen, maybe you should allow what you see when you do to register a bit.

Meantime, apologies for my not doing this sooner, but AlAlvarez, I want to commend you on the great alternative reviews you gave earlier of this year’s 2008 Oscar nominations. For you’re looking at these movies straight on and telling it like it really is, and I truly admire that. It’s very reassuring in an age when it seems so few dare to question and just echo whatever the “expert critics” say.

Schmadrian, placing all the blame on dictators, or “bad men” as you call them, has always been the biggest cop-out to me. So when you say “Come on” to your perception of my placing all blame on some bad men as being responsible for the disappearance of America’s onetime great movie theaters, your perception is off, and your two-word response likewise. This is not to excuse bad men who were responsible for the demise of America’s onetime great theaters, only to say that in terms of who all needs to be blamed for what happened they were only some of the players involved. For the ultimate power lies with us, the people at large, not with them (save for things the laws of physics simply won’t allow for).

Focusing on Philadelphia’s Mayfair Theatre as an excellent example, its demise most definitely did coincide with a sudden Philadelphia political shift, and with a small handful of twits suddenly being in public office. That sudden political shift most definitely was a contributing factor to the Mayfair Theatre’s sudden demise, no question. But ah, the word “question” itself. I questioned why the Mayfair had to suddenly go downhill in the face of that new breed of politicians, but, how many others did? For that, to me, was were the biggest blame existed. For twits are twits. They don’t know how to be, are incapable of being, anything else. Meaning that the only power they have is the power we give them. And we give them that power when we don’t question them. And why didn’t we question them? I did. But who else did? For that’s where the biggest problem existed, and where the biggest finger of blame could be pointed to.

At the time of the Mayfair’s demise, the babyboomers suddenly came of age, twits were suddenly in office as the politicians, and the parents of the babyboomers were eager to get on with becoming empty nesters. So the babyboomers, who needed to question the Mayfair Theatre’s sudden demise, and who rightfully should have, were caught between doing that and being pressured to get out of their houses by their parents so eager to get on with becoming empty nesters. So the general outlook among the babyboomers became one of, “Who cares what’s happening to the Mayfair Theatre at this point? My parents at home are giving me hell, the house I’m living in has suddenly gotten too small, and I just want to get the hell out of here!” In brief, it was very much a pressure cooker type of situation, hence explaining the youth riots that took place around the Mayfair Theatre back around the time of its sudden demise. And if the Mayfair Theatre did go into a sudden state of demise at that point, in many ways it was understandable.

But fastforward to many years later, after the smoke of that crunch had fully cleared, why could not the Mayfair Theatre have been brought back as a theater at that point? I questioned this. Why didn’t anyone else? I questioned it and all I got back was a shower of nastiness in return. No rational reasons for it; just a lot of lunacy.

Many of the twits who had been in political office back when the Mayfair went under were still in office by that later point, and they’re still in office today. And today when it would make full sense to, nobody questions them, nobody. And it’s there that I place the blame on how the Mayfair Theatre building is today, not on the twits who are still in public office. At the same time I do certainly fault the twits who are still in political office today as being partially to blame for how the Mayfair Theatre building is today. And I argue that this situation could be turned around for the better if we could get real politicians back in office for a change. But nobody will dare push for that. And one person trying to — me — is not going to do it. In today’s context I could say, oh, those twits are to blame for everything, the Mayfair Theatre building no longer being this and this and that. But no, I don’t do that. At the same time, I don’t see how I can blame myself for how the Mayfair Theatre building is now. And when I blamed others for its demise, show me one instance where I was unfair — and off the mark — in my doing so. I’m all ears.

“At the same time, I don’t see how I can blame myself for how the Mayfair Theatre building is now. And when I blamed others for its demise, show me one instance where I was unfair — and off the mark — in my doing so. I’m all ears.”

Honestly, I have no frame of reference for the Mayfair. It’s not even on my radar.

As I previously stated, you’re concentrating on one particular portion of this whole situation. I don’t know how to respond to you on this level because I’m not conversant with your specifics. Additionally, my curiosity is piqued primarily by the overall set of circumstances that has led to the need and popularity of this very site. I have my own heartbreaks I could regale with…including a death during a demolition…but so what? I’m much more interested in gaining understanding as to how we got her in a larger sense.

In Philadelphia’s case, and I think the same principle happened throughout a great deal of the rest of the U.S. as well, at a time when it was upon Philadelphia’s long-thriving industry to modernize so as to remain competitive in the world, the floodgates to foreign-produced goods were opened wide at that same time, most notably with Nixon’s meeting with China’s Chairman Mao in 1971. So as a matter of “smart economics,” all plans to modernize Philadelphia’s manufacturing were abandoned. And I put it to you that that was the number one reason for Philadelphia’s “white flight,” rather than anything racial. You are right, Al, that when such a sizeable portion of the population left Philadelphia the city’s palaces could not survive on the customer base that remained and which at that point was the only thing they had to work with. But rather than it being racial as you suggest, it was economic. In my own experience growing up in Philadelphia during that period, I was under pressure from my father constantly after I turned 18 to go get one of those “great paying jobs” down in the more industrialized part of the city, his not understanding that at that point he was living in the past. This was why there were the youth riots around the Mayfair Theatre the way there were. For so many others in my age group were coming under that same pressure. In my case, because I was by nature of white collar leaning, I didn’t notice so much the vanishing away of blue collar opportunities the way so many others of my age group did. Hence, when I attended the riots around the Mayfair at the time of its demise I did so as an observer rather than a participant. Plus I had the added advantages of not living in a tiny rowhouse that I suddenly had to get out of to get one of my own.

But the point is, movie theaters, whether palaces or otherwise (I myself never thought of the Mayfair as a palace) cannot survive well if people cannot afford to attend them regularly. Assuming you’ve looked at that link I provided earlier showing its interior, when Philadelphia was in its heyday, the Mayfair was at the low end of the many theaters this city once had. If you can imagine. And of the huge palaces we had downtown, I look back now and think, was that just a dream I had or what?

What must be kept in mind is that for the average person, and most particularly it’s true of those who are blue collar, the outlook is, what good is having money if you can’t spend it? So when Philadelphia’s blue collar industry was thriving, the theaters we had provided great places to spend that money at. And oh! They spent their money like it was going out of style, thinking the powerful cashflow would last forever! And the theaters thrived accordingly.

Many today seem to have this perception that theaters can exist in a vacuum, that other factors aren’t needed for this to be possible. It was the great illusion they presented, as it were. And many trying to start up theaters again today don’t seem to get that. When they try to, and then not enough people come to it so as to enable it to thrive, they think that everybody’s being overly tight with their wallets. And that’s really not the way it actually is. We’re living in an age now when we’re told that money is everything, without it we’re nobody. So against that backdrop, naturally there’s a lot of bluffing going on.

But when you look upon Philadelphia today realistically, its onetime thriving industry now long gone, if you assume there’s a lot of money out there, you have to logically ask, if so, where could all this money possibly be coming from? For it’s not money you’re seeing; it’s bluffing — not all that dissimilar to right before the last Great Depression struck. But truth be said, Philadelphia is so hard up for money now that it’s seeing dollar signs in its long existing parks and doing away with them, and money that could be made through doing away with its longstanding historic treasures — such as the empty hulk of Philadelphia’s Boyd Theatre, Philadelphia’s last still-standing movie palace, even though it’s been closed since 2002 — all to replace them with that which can generate profitability. As in, sure, liquidate everything of value we have and get rich that way; but then what? Nobody’s looking that far ahead.

For our longstanding out of relying on China to keep “moving forward” is starting to wear thin now. And with global food shortages now starting to emerge — dramatically being escalated by the fast rising cost of oil and the thirst for energy alternatives, namely ethanol — where all that onetime white flight from Philadelphia moved away to sure would come in handy right now if it was still all the open farmland the way it once was. And it could be that again, if people were to come back to the city once more. Restored theaters as theaters could help along that attraction. But there is the economics that have to be looked at, too. As in, why did the theaters all once thrive here the way they did? Certainly not because we outsourced all our blue collar job opportunities over to China.

So Schmadrian, put that in your essay if you will. While thanks, Al, for your great insights.

I hear you. But what’s interesting to note in all this, how come we seem to be the only country in the world where this pattern is practiced? Every other country in the world I can think of retains its cities as being its main population centers while safeguarding its rural and coastal areas as just that. Rural and coastal areas. Here we treat it as so “normal” that the proper thing to do the moment you get a chance, and if you can find a way to, is to up and move away from the city. And woe unto those who fail to, or who refuse to. Where does that come from?

I remember back when I was a teenager dating a girl who lived out in the suburbs, much of my attraction towards her being how much I admired the suburban neighborhood in which she resided, I was astonished to learn how much she hated the suburbs and wished she could’ve grown up in her father’s old neighborhood, which had been in Philadelphia’s inner city. Yet social pressures were such that to do that would be to go “back” rather than “forward,” it being an all-out demographic shift taboo as it were. For my father’s generation, and all the generations that came before him, it wasn’t that way. Just the opposite. The city was the place to live, if you could find a way to do it. And everyone wanted to live in the city. The great city.

And can the experience of going to a movie out in the suburbs ever be the same as going to see one in the city? I don’t think so, just as going to a mall, no matter how nice, could never match going to that big city department store. That old Petula Clark song, “Downtown,” says it all really. For could you imagine anyone singing a song with that much enthusiasm regarding the suburban excursion experience without it being a comedy recording?

When so many Philadelphians left the city they didn’t leave because they were fed up with city life. Rather, they left because the city they loved was shut down on them, whether it was the great theaters, or the great jobs, or the great churches, or the great department stores, or the great whatever else in general. Did it have to go that way? It doesn’t seem it did. Rather, it just seemed to be somebody’s twisted idea of how things should go, even though to all other countries throughout the world this demographic shift pattern is totally alien.

And your telling me of this pattern happened in Miami, too, comes as a total surprise to me. For Miami, geeze, I thought everyone wanted to live in places like Miami! Beautiful white sandy beaches! Sparkling tall highrises! Warm temperatures year round! I was there in 1976 and I thought it was fantastic. Everyone was so friendly, and I didn’t see any traces of poverty anywhere. It was just like that Martin Mull song, “Am I In Heaven, Or Am I In Miami?” So what the heck happened in Miami between then and now, as I thought it was still the great seaside city to live in, if you could. Was it FEMA that killed it, or what?

Truly, people living in foreign countries must be scratching their heads when they look at us!

Having lived in the U.K. for many years I can tell you how they avoided it.

The greenfield lands surrounding cities are protected from housing or shopping developments. This forces the town center(centre?)shopping areas to stay active. The theatres, however, still suffered from post war neglect and alternative entertainment so many towns had no theatres at all during the seventies and eighties. Multiplexes started booming in the nineties mostly in leisure parks chosen by the town councils. They would not allow any new suburban retail that could hurt the town center. In most cases there is only one multiplex per town and near the city center. They did this in reaction to what happened in the U.S.

Miami’s downtown area still has poverty pockets today and even had race riots during the late seventies. On the main street, Flagler, there were five movie palaces operating within four blocks when I was growing up. Only one survives as a concert hall and that one was saved by a local philanthropist, not the city.

Having lived in the UK myself for years, I can tell you that the difference between the US and UK is quite simple: they never underwent a post-WWII boom. Period. Whereas America expanded rapidly, the UK had rationing through the early 50s. So really, the notion that things were ‘protected’ from happening as they did Stateside is a bit of a misconception. More to the truth, they simply never had the ‘chance’ to make some of the bad decisions their American cousins did, because they were simply too busy re-building and recovering…and repaying their war-debts.

There is a general anti-city bias the world over; except in those countries where there is no option, the megalopolises must be mega-populated out of need. This anti-city bias means that people don’t really care all that much about the effects of rampant redevelopment or its sister, neglect. Cities in these situations are begrudged necessities. This, in the end, leads to landmark building such as those you mourn in Philadelphia being lost. When people don’t respect those centers where culture had once thrived…things die. What these people -and I’m talking about the regular populace as well as politicians- grasp too late is that cities are for people. That we were meant to live in them, thrive in them. But in our ‘cocooning’ world, people have been shirking cities. But I’ll tell ya; in the end, suburban life is a betrayal of mostly everything that we once believed Life should be about. Eventually, people come to realize that cities are not bad, in fact they drive the engine of the world we want to live in. They’re not only ‘acceptable’, they’re absolute necessities. And this realization is a real stinker when it’s finally made.

Al, this is my point: there wasn’t the post-WWI surge, the wherewithal to make this ‘encroachment’ an issue. The default setting (‘Redevelopment, redevelopment, redevelopment!’) was never established. So it never became the issue it did, on these shores.

And…

And while I know this isn’t a political forum, and I’ve had no intention of injecting into the discussion contentious conjectures, maybe we’re all adult enough to be able to venture off the safe path…if only for a moment or two. So…

America was predicated on the idea of ‘not being somewhere else’. Of ‘a new start’. Of ‘leaving everything and everybody else behind’. Of isolationism. To me, having lived there, having visited there since my childhood, having family there for decades now, my belief is that there are certain values extant at the DNA level. Most of them aren’t even discussed. They’re unconscious ‘self-evident truths’.

One of these truths is that, aside from those instances that afford chest-thumping, parade-inducing, flag-waving pride, the past is not generally revered. Heritage is not generally held in high esteem. There is far more a tendency in the US (most certainly in comparison with many European situations) to bulldoze and redevelop than there is to cherish heritage, to respect the past, to integrate it with the future. The most simplistic examples I can think of are a) movie theatres and b) sports stadiums. But here’s a very good one, one not so ‘simplistic’: Grand Central Terminal in NYC. That it was ever deemed suitable for demolition is proof-positive of this mindset…and not just on the part of myopic developers.

Take a look at media: there is so much of an emphasis placed on new tv shows. New music. New movies. Take a look at the marketplace. Everyone wants ‘New! New! New!’ There is far more value placed on ‘next year’s model’ than last year’s…unless we start to get into nostalgia…and here’s where the paradox occurs, one that brings into play the endemic American tradition of celebration. (My critical observations aside, nobody does ‘celebration’ like the US.) America is an acquisitional society. It consumes at a rate like no other. And in this consumption, it tends to look forward, not back. Honestly, if this wasn’t the case, you’d see far less of a decimation of movie palace heritage than you do. (And just to forestall any rebuttals to this suggestion, I’m not saying that in other cultures all theatres have survived. I’m merely saying that renewal has far more cachet in the US than in other cultures.)

What’s made this mindset all the more potent is the entrepreneurial spirit in the US, the ideology of innovation, of sticktoitness, of dreaming a dream and pursuing it. Given these two aspects, a general tendency to regard ‘new’ as being better than ‘old’, and a general drive to affluence…‘progress’…should what we see in American cities relating to this subject -the sad loss of cultural heritage- be so surprising?

Regarding my comment about the state of cities in the world, the prejudice against them, here’s a starter article; I’m sure there tons online dealing with the subject. (Google the title of the book, ‘The Endless City’) This is an interesting puzzle piece.

The whole ‘Ken Livingstone: Boon or Bane’ is an intriguing discussion…but not germane to what I was getting at. Which was that when you disassociate yourself from urban living spaces, you end up with a mighty mess down the road, part of which is the decimation of cultural landmarks such as movie palaces.

I can think of three examples of this, from personal experience: Hamilton, ON…Norfolk, VA…and Buffalo, NY. Often this is the result of the notion that ‘Cities are Bad’. People develop the peripheries of the cities (more money to be made, everything is ‘new’) and the core dies. And to bring back a city core is a daunting prospect.

Al:

LMAO!

As the Brits would say: “What are you like?!?”

The key to making cities work is density. Only then can utilities and everything else be delivered cost-effectively.

And when you’ve got people living in cities…loss of things like movie palaces becomes less likely…because people are using them! What a concept!

As I tried to no avail to get this posted as a new item two days ago (the result of either a technical glitch or an editorial decision), I’m posting it here:

‘Challenge issued to those hating how things turned out’

Regular Cinema Treasures commenter schmadrian has issued a challenge to those movie palace aficionados who wish things hadn’t ended up the way they have.

“As hinted at in a recent ‘Cinema Treasures’ thread, I’d like to challenge all those who so animatedly decry ‘how bad things have gotten’ to put aside their frustrations, their habitual indignant ravings, and instead, invest these sometimes not-inconsiderable energies into suggesting how we might not have ended up here. (While ‘here’ is subjective, for the sake of this experiment, let’s say we’re referring to not only a loss of cinematic heritage by way of the wrecking ball, but also leaving us with bland, over-priced boxes-for-theatres with mannerless idjits for patrons.) Using the concept of ‘alternate history’, I’m challenging any and all to have a go at jiggling circumstances, at rearranging cause-and-heartbreaking-effect, at playing with all the contributing factors to end up with-

Well, to end up with something more resembling what you’d like to be seeing out there, rather than we have. This, in a nutshell, is a chance for some to put their money where their mouths are."

While this certainly isn’t an attempt to make fun of overzealous attitudes, it is an effort to develop some more perspective. If it turns out that there are some thoroughly creative approaches to retroactively revising circumstances so that movie palaces are the norm rather than the exception, then the time and effort involved to construct the framework for the exercise will have been worth it. If not…well…who knows what therapeutic benefits a deeper understanding, reconciliation and closure might bring?

The best suggestion provided by participants will be awarded a modest prize, the nature of which will no doubt befit a contest relating to movie-going.

The challenge can be found here.

Al: And…?

LOL

Well, it’s certainly been my impression, given the number of comments I’ve come across during the years I’ve been visiting. There seems to be more value placed on moaning and whining about the state of affairs, rather than any interest in understanding -and accepting- how things got this way. (And the parts we’ve all played.) As if the grumbling somehow offers up some sort of…well…perverse satisfaction. As if it somehow validates the person, being in such consistent distemper. Not only that, but there’s the typical ‘old person’s’ dismissal of different values, the likes and dislikes of a ‘younger audience’. It reminds me of my father’s diatribes about ‘Dancing With The Stars’, his self-righteous fury about how ‘THAT’S not ballroom dancing!!!’

Oh, and I wasn’t referring to you, Al, in any case.
: )

This is the future of ‘Cinemas Treasures", Schmadrian. Not just internet tombstones as you see it…

http://cinematreasures.org/newns/18906_0_1_0_C/

Hmmm… When you let the ball settle in the grass that way, the only thing that can follow is a new ball, new serve. So here goes.

If we don’t have the great movie palaces today like we once did it all comes down to a greatness aversion, ultimately that and nothing more.

Now watch that ball just go settle in the grass on the other side of the net as well…

Having lived the Gold Class experience many times in Australia – America – you dont know what you are missing! Its not beyond the reach of the average citizen, in fact middle class earning movie viewers in Australia constitute the majority of patronage, particularly in so called middle to lower earning “suburban” areas. The business has done nothing but boom here and in fact, you have to be fast off the mark to take up the opportunities to get bookings sometimes.

I think we’re ALL surprised here how slow the US has been off the mark to initiate this idea. But at the end of the day, if you dont like it, dont go. Nobody is pushing it down your throat the way McDonalds pushed their franchise down ours….

I am beyond excited about this theater…I have actually thought about this concept for years. This place is beautiful and very classy. If we’re going to pay money to go to a movie we minus well pay a little more to be in comfy seats and have great food & service too. We tried to get in last Sunday but it was sold out!! These people are brilliant! Kuddos! =) and for those of you reading this and agree, Please come and see me at EL Gaucho in Bellevue we are opening this next week….Finally classy upscale places to go to on the Eastside! Cheers!!!

Karie