Schmadrian, a question to you, if I may. I find it odd that you insist there is some nefarous “personal connection” in the demise of the picture palaces. Why do you insist that there is? In your most recent writing above, you point out the example of the transistor radio, which, as a business decision, evolved into todays' I-Pod. Did the ‘people’ have anything to do with this progression? I think not, other than to have responded positively to the initial testing or product roll-out.
Picture Palaces did not die as an entertainment delivery system, they evolved. Did single screen theatres die because people no longer wanted to go to see movies? No. The owners closed them after the people were turned to the new 3, 4 and 6 screen theatres, which held a substantial advantage over those single screeners. To be sure, many palaces were cut up into multiple screening rooms, and they survived for a while, until competition built newer and larger edifices. It’s the evolution of the exhibition BUSINESS.
As for the Palaces' themselves, many have been razed to make way for other uses, the land being too valuable to leave vacant. Still others were saved, remaining closed, because there was no market for anything else and the cost of demolition was extreme. Some of these theatres that have been reclaimed, finding new use as performance spaces, do so at peril, particularly when the programming choices are limited. In the end, they’ll succeed if the program choices result in success at the box office. As some like to say, it’s all about butts in seats. Always has been and always will be.
TheatreBuff1, I can’t help but be curious as in what way do you see single-screen palaces returning? Can you illustrate a business model where this could be? Especially given that all has continually moved away from single screen, stand alone theatres for over fifty years.
But too, I still believe everything about the industry is business driven. I’ve yet to see anything that says otherwise. A coorelation could be drawn within the recorded music industry and it’s evolution from vinyl to tape to plastic to downloads. What’s even more interesting is the companion live concert business and how it’s evolved and the direction that’s headed, what with the profound changes happening right now and the lack of developing new talent.
But I digressed and will get back to the base, which still tells me all that’s happened is strictly business. Maximizing profits is and will remain the driving force.
One only needs to follow the history of the film exhibition industry to see it’s the BUSINESS that created, revised, abandoned and reformed the theatres that brought us to where we are today. Storefront theatres replaced nickleodeons which in turn were replaced by showman, such as Rothafel and Graumann and their grand palaces, which were then mimiced by the studios, which had a vertically integrated film system. Films were but a small piece of the show; a bit of the two hour presentation which very much included the Theatre and it’s grandiose and individual design. The Theatre allowed one to escape. If anything, it was in it’s day, THE amusement park, and for just 25 cents admission.
When film grew into something more than a simple two-reeler, and then with color AND sound – movies became king. First to go was the stage, then the ornateness of the palaces. The Theatres became mere screening rooms, no longer part of the amusement. With the advent of television’s competition, it was the filming/projection systems that changed, from the former flat 4:3 aspect ratios to newer CinemaScope, 3-D and the super widescreen, spectaculars of Cinerama, saved for the largest downtown theatres.
With the advent of shopping centers, came the sixties invention of multiplex’s which inturn were replaced by megaplex’s and there minimum 14 screen screening rooms.
With each evolution, everything that preceeded it was left to die. And the public had little to do with it. It was the exhibition industry which evolved to maximize profits as they figured they could. Today, the megaplexs are still being built, but not at the rapid pace of even five years ago. Picture Palaces will never return. There’s no call for them, no need
Today, we marvel at the beauty of a building created to be a part of entertainment. For some of these palaces, a new live exists as a live performance hall. which is after all what they’re best suited to today. They were built to entertain and for those Theatres saved or about to be saved, hoorah, they’re evolving too. and one might say, they’ve grown-up into something that Roxy and Syd would appreciate. I’m told that B. Marcus Priteca insisted on designing his theatres, which included most if not all of the Pantages Theatres in North America, with a stage. He also felt theatre buildings evolved, so that the walls, ceilings and decorations, which for the most part were nothing more than “sets,” would change. If he were alive today, I think he’d knowingly smile.
As for film exhibition, I feel when, as the saying goes – “Film’s Done Right,” we have a great system today, in rooms designed to present film properly. But film exhibition isn’t what this website is about.
If it wasn’t shot in 70mm, and it wasn’t, then if it’s screened in 70mm, it’s a 35mm blow-up, which isn’t unusual. Just keep in mind, blow-ups do not make it better. Defects just become 4 times actual size. Something to think about.
“What else at that time? Usually if a studio opens in blitzkrieg fashion right from the start it can cause doubts, i.e., get the best box-office take you can for those first 2-3 wks because word-of-mouth won’t help sustain it.” G Feret
I think you’ll find that virtually every film released today is GONE after 3 weeks, at least as a first-run. That’s those in general release, not art films. It’s the nature of the business as it’s evolved into exhibition for the sake of advertising for the real money maker, the after-market DVD’s. Looking at the full history of film exhibition is fascinating in that it has constantly evolved, but particularly so since the 1970’s – single screens to the 3 to 6 screen multiplexs. those multiplexs to the 1990’s Megaplexes with no fewer than 16 screens. All of those screens were created to give justification to holding a film, whose attendance was waning. Giving it a longer life, constantly moving it from the largest, say 700 seat auditorium down to the smallest 100 seat shoebox. Thus, the theatre ran it for the full, six-week run, but put the newer, in demand films in the larger houses. Those six-week commitments are now three weeks, as today’s audience wants instant gratification, demanding to see it on opening weekend or not at all. It’s a precarious situation to say the least. One that takes deep pockets to build new theatres. One that few can or would take.
I predict it will open so “wide” that records will be set. If there’s a theatre NOT playing it, it’s because they don’t want to, OR, they’re only set up for digital and supposedly, Speilberg says no digital screenings, only film so we’ll see. So, given that, I’d say 8,000 plus screens. That’s about one-in-four.
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.
Check out the Village Roadshow’s Gold Class Cinemas website to see that it’s been up and going for sometime in Australia, Singapore and Greece. When in their website, view the video which step-by-step explains what’s happening. They’re not offering concessions, but a fine-dining experience, with a fixed menu pricing at $39 and kids menu at $15. I agree, a night out at these prices is steep, but check out VIP pricing for a concert in a neighborhood near you, and one begins to understand how this is successful.
Chances are 99.98% that the interior shots were done on a sound stage or that the theatre used was different from the Fillmore in New York. The nature of film making requires the company to be able to control the environment completely. That includes sound, lighting, sets, etc. Then too, they could have “dressed down” their set, otherwise known as aging. The Warner Grand in San Pedro has seen countless shoots, from period pieces to contemporary. It’s portrayed east coast theatres, neighborhood palaces, opera houses, New York Broadway houses and once, even in a ‘made-for-TV’ film, was standing in as Radio City Music Hall in one of two movies-of-the-week for the bio of Liberace. The tales that could be told about that shoot. Whew.
The last question is easy to answer and even easier to understand if one’s spent any time in southern California. It’s called “investment.” Real estate is an incredibly lucrative investment in SoCal. Even moreso when one realizes that in Calif., real estate is the ground, not the building – which can be improved, demolished, retrofitted or picked up and moved. Land is King in this neck of the woods. And equity, the queen.
On another note, CIM developed the next door Hollywood and Highland project and have long been eager to acquire another piece of the block to complete the “square” per se. As an olde preservation-minded friend once said, preservationists preserve and developers develope. Seldom do their interests run down the same road. Put another way, with a different twist, developers make their money by building and selling. They have no interest in being operators or investors. They create and sell and move on to the next project. For a prime example of what I mean, check into the recent history of that preservation-minded community a few miles from the Chinese, Pasadena and their currently gutted Raymond Theatre. After years of fighting an incredibly long, ardous and valient effort – the condos are rising.
And lastly, the Chinese is now a six-screen complex, rather than the main house and two side-by-side storefront theatres that it became in the sixties.
I’m told it’s pretty common knowledge within the L.A. ‘preservation’ community that when Mann’s lease is up, the end of the Chinese occurs. That’s only almost 15 years from now. Not a long time in the overall scheme.
Given the situation with the Bay and todays thinking, I’m not surprised. The couple of times I went, specifically because of the organ, I was surprised. First because the organ was completed outsized for the tiny theatre. With it’s huge wooden “pipes” consuming about a third of the right wall in the auditorium, the platform mounted console, sliding into the auditorium and out between hiding curtains, it seemed obvious, the organ was installed just to have a place for it. It just should not have been in that tiny theatre. So maybe, it being in a church is not a bad thing, provided of course, it’s a large church.
If memory serves, there’s a Presbyterian Church on Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena with a phenonomial organ installation that not only is used for Sunday services, but frequently gives recitals and performances in the different styles, including theatre.
As for presentation, it appears the owner/s don’t care. And that is a shame as there’s no excuse for blatant, on-going problems like those described.
Congratulations Bob, You’ve been working on this for quite some time. Everyone should know, Bob is a stickler and when it comes to detail, he invented it. I’m sure he’ll wow ‘em. Nice to see your working with the original team.
William, do you remember the managers name? I recall a guy named Rob who was arranging Sunday morning screenings of special, found prints, that later grew into a series beyond anyone’s imagination. Can’t recall his last name, but he was originally working for Mann at the Chinese while Ray Howell was managing director there. Thanks
Bill H. above has it correct. Dick McCann, Priteca’s protege, acquired the practice on Priteca’s passing. Any and all drawings Priteca had are likely now with McCann. McCann’s company is now located in the greater LA area. To be certain, architects and others, quite rightly, live off of these archives. That’s true ‘bread & butter’ work for them. In other words. If an architect’s firm that has the original drawings, does not do the work, expect to pay a substantial sum for the drawings.
I’m not sure if Huntington Park is anything like the City of Los Angeles, but if so, you’re in a great deal of luck. In LA, all sets of original blueprints for public buildings are saved and accessible.
Then too, there are firms out there that can digitally, laser scan
and measure a building, in and out and produce a reasonable set of as-built drawings, (which might be needed as it is, since any work done will require the more accurate version.) Obviously, whatever works, will, but it won’t be cheap.
Guesstimate way off or not, the bottom line is that most marquees are specific to each theatre, both in measurement and more importantly, its weight. A large sign company needs to be called in first to evaluate and recommend. Hopefully, old photos can be found to at least see what existed from a structual standpoint anyway. It’s not a run-of-the-mill smallish task. As above, good luck and do let us know what was learned.
What you’re requesting as a baseline figure is such an elusive thing it’s not funny. Are there “ballparks?” Doubtful. For example, if I may. If you work from a point of second-run, having virtually no legs, you could figure 35% of the B.O. vs a minimum of $250 to $400 guaranteed and in advance. But that film would have been played-out in its initial release, since all of the larger plexes in the area, (read, within the zone,) will have played it to death, moving it from the larger auditoriums, continually onto smaller and smaller screens. Say for sake of example, a 15 screener begins the run of the summer blockbuster wannabe in the biggest room of 800 seats. When no longer warranted, they’ll move it from there to a 300er, then 200, followed by the 95 seater where it’ll sit until every person who wants to see it has and more than once. It will have had its ‘second-run’ once it steps down a couple times, but not at second-run ticket prices. The distrib will have offered it for the first several weeks at a maximum percentage and guarantee, say 90%. In it’s third week, the percentage, if the pre-paid guarantee is met, would drop to 75%, then 50% until finally, in its waning weeks, it would be at the forever more percentage of 35%
In pre-megaplex days, single screeners could pick up films dropped from the first-runs, usually after 4 to 6 weeks, particularly with the release of newer product. (there weren’t enough screens to ‘move-over’ a film in the same theatre complex.
I remember a fortuitous booking coup with Crocodile Dundee for are 1400 seat, single screen grand old dame. The film broke over the Thanksgiving holiday and within 3 weeks, most first-runs were dropping it in favor of the upcoming Christmas fare. We ordered and got a print for the Christmas holiday at the usual 35% vs $100 guarantee. The unheardof happened and Dundee shot back to number 1 for that 2 week period. We called in extra help from the 4-corners and ran that film 6 times a day all thru the holiday break from 9am until midnight.
Bottom-line, the only surefire figure is the aforementioned 35% vs. the smallish guarantee. Thats usually good for everything once it’s off of it’s initial release. All else is figured by the particular theatre, number of screens, number of seats, number of shows a day for 7 days, the house ‘nut’, (the house allowance, as it’s otherwise known,) history in the market, and so on.
It’s just not cut-and-dried, or an easy thing to calculate. Personally, I’d try and develope more of a classic format. But that too takes time to develop an audience. Maybe as long as a year, slowly building from 20 patrons to 100 and eventually 150.
If you’d like to email me, post such and I’ll revise my profile for a day and open the email.
nbolmer, The distribs will negotiate directly with you, as you would be your own “booker,” but yes, you have to either acquire an existing theatre, (which they already have all of your mentioned info,) or create a new one. “bigscreeniz’s” archives have plenty for you to see costs of, particularly for the smaller independents. Otherwise, I’d get friendly with whomever in the biz and sponge up the info on dollar costs. It’s the next best thing to actually working at one, which as someone else suggested, might be your best bet. I had friends, who nearly 15 years ago, spent nine months out of two years, touring the western half of the country, doing hands on, eyeball, talk-a-lot, extensive notes and photos research on over 300 coffeehouses before opening there own. Book research, online research, both barely scratched the surface. It was the ABSORTION of the information that culminated in their opening a thriving, 100’s of thousands of dollars business.
Try Googling the aforementioned Alamo Drafthouse as they are far and away the best of this mini-micro-industry. You’re already aware of the Arlington, but there are better, lots better out there. Also, there’s the not to be forgotten, dinner-and-a-movie crowd, (most featuring pizza.) There was a chain of franchises at one time called CinemaGrill, but the few that remain, I understand are in a tough time, eeeeking out a living, (as told by a friend who owns one.)
Have you made any calls to distributors for the majors yet?
Alright, a bit more on my 2 cents. First up, as for distributors in first run, Each studio has there own distribution arm, for the most part – Sony, (the parent) for Columbia, Buena Vista for all things Disney, Paramount is Paramount and a few independents as well as now, DreamWorks; Warner for Warner and some indies and Fox doing the same. In short, there’s no one source for 1st run. As for the deal, You won’t “negotiate” anything. The distribs will tell you what the deal is. For 1st run, it’s frequently a HUGE initial outlay of bucks against 90% of the door. You better have the wherewithal to hang-in there when you have a Box Office bomb. Remember, there’s a reason for megaplexes today. The whole strategem has changed; business models that once worked, are now dead. For example, there’s no-such thing as second-run today, at least as a large, strong and viable business segment. Single screeners are still dying daily.
I’d recommend three sources, if you haven’t gone there already. bigscreenbiz.com, film-tech.com and the current issue of FORTUNE. The first two will tell you to absorb and fully take-in their archives, because it’s all been asked before.
In other words, you’re in for a lot of reading. And as someone else wrote, a lot of homework.
I’m fairly familiar with what you’re looking to do. Am rehabing a theatre to do this and more. I’d be curious to know which end of the business you’re familiar with, as in exhibition or restaurant. Let us know where you’re located as in which state? Where are you looking to set up. Knowing this, we may be able to talk.
Was not at all bagging on Patsy, and am sorry if that’s what’s thought. My comment was to the point that gutting a theatre the way the Warner was, DESTROYS completely and should never be called adaptive reuse.
Patsy,you wrote “For a city the size of Pittsburgh that building shouldn’t be sadly vacant, but restored and a theatre once again!” Unfortunately, it went through a transformation, one that wasn’t ‘adaptive reuse,’ but a gutting of the building, except for a portion of the massive lobby. Within the shell of the gutted facade, three to four new floors of shops were constructed, creating an indoor mall. Nothing of the original interior was saved. Needless to say the real shame is that even that makeover is now dormant.
This and similar redos have occurred across the country. A notable and successful venture saved the facade only of the former Edwards Theatre on Third St. in Santa Monica. Around that, was built a new multiplex with condos above, heralding the rejuvination of today’s Third Street Promenade. The question is, will it last as the new theatre wasn’t a ‘megaplex?’ Time will tell.
Personally, I dislike calling what happened to the Warner’s makeover “adaptive reuse.” I’d save that term for the remake of theatres into other performance spaces, whether film or live. Gutting the space to make them into completely unrecognizable retail or living spaces is not adaptive but a stripping to rebuild something wholly new.
Schmadrian, a question to you, if I may. I find it odd that you insist there is some nefarous “personal connection” in the demise of the picture palaces. Why do you insist that there is? In your most recent writing above, you point out the example of the transistor radio, which, as a business decision, evolved into todays' I-Pod. Did the ‘people’ have anything to do with this progression? I think not, other than to have responded positively to the initial testing or product roll-out.
Picture Palaces did not die as an entertainment delivery system, they evolved. Did single screen theatres die because people no longer wanted to go to see movies? No. The owners closed them after the people were turned to the new 3, 4 and 6 screen theatres, which held a substantial advantage over those single screeners. To be sure, many palaces were cut up into multiple screening rooms, and they survived for a while, until competition built newer and larger edifices. It’s the evolution of the exhibition BUSINESS.
As for the Palaces' themselves, many have been razed to make way for other uses, the land being too valuable to leave vacant. Still others were saved, remaining closed, because there was no market for anything else and the cost of demolition was extreme. Some of these theatres that have been reclaimed, finding new use as performance spaces, do so at peril, particularly when the programming choices are limited. In the end, they’ll succeed if the program choices result in success at the box office. As some like to say, it’s all about butts in seats. Always has been and always will be.
TheatreBuff1, I can’t help but be curious as in what way do you see single-screen palaces returning? Can you illustrate a business model where this could be? Especially given that all has continually moved away from single screen, stand alone theatres for over fifty years.
But too, I still believe everything about the industry is business driven. I’ve yet to see anything that says otherwise. A coorelation could be drawn within the recorded music industry and it’s evolution from vinyl to tape to plastic to downloads. What’s even more interesting is the companion live concert business and how it’s evolved and the direction that’s headed, what with the profound changes happening right now and the lack of developing new talent.
But I digressed and will get back to the base, which still tells me all that’s happened is strictly business. Maximizing profits is and will remain the driving force.
One only needs to follow the history of the film exhibition industry to see it’s the BUSINESS that created, revised, abandoned and reformed the theatres that brought us to where we are today. Storefront theatres replaced nickleodeons which in turn were replaced by showman, such as Rothafel and Graumann and their grand palaces, which were then mimiced by the studios, which had a vertically integrated film system. Films were but a small piece of the show; a bit of the two hour presentation which very much included the Theatre and it’s grandiose and individual design. The Theatre allowed one to escape. If anything, it was in it’s day, THE amusement park, and for just 25 cents admission.
When film grew into something more than a simple two-reeler, and then with color AND sound – movies became king. First to go was the stage, then the ornateness of the palaces. The Theatres became mere screening rooms, no longer part of the amusement. With the advent of television’s competition, it was the filming/projection systems that changed, from the former flat 4:3 aspect ratios to newer CinemaScope, 3-D and the super widescreen, spectaculars of Cinerama, saved for the largest downtown theatres.
With the advent of shopping centers, came the sixties invention of multiplex’s which inturn were replaced by megaplex’s and there minimum 14 screen screening rooms.
With each evolution, everything that preceeded it was left to die. And the public had little to do with it. It was the exhibition industry which evolved to maximize profits as they figured they could. Today, the megaplexs are still being built, but not at the rapid pace of even five years ago. Picture Palaces will never return. There’s no call for them, no need
Today, we marvel at the beauty of a building created to be a part of entertainment. For some of these palaces, a new live exists as a live performance hall. which is after all what they’re best suited to today. They were built to entertain and for those Theatres saved or about to be saved, hoorah, they’re evolving too. and one might say, they’ve grown-up into something that Roxy and Syd would appreciate. I’m told that B. Marcus Priteca insisted on designing his theatres, which included most if not all of the Pantages Theatres in North America, with a stage. He also felt theatre buildings evolved, so that the walls, ceilings and decorations, which for the most part were nothing more than “sets,” would change. If he were alive today, I think he’d knowingly smile.
As for film exhibition, I feel when, as the saying goes – “Film’s Done Right,” we have a great system today, in rooms designed to present film properly. But film exhibition isn’t what this website is about.
If it wasn’t shot in 70mm, and it wasn’t, then if it’s screened in 70mm, it’s a 35mm blow-up, which isn’t unusual. Just keep in mind, blow-ups do not make it better. Defects just become 4 times actual size. Something to think about.
“What else at that time? Usually if a studio opens in blitzkrieg fashion right from the start it can cause doubts, i.e., get the best box-office take you can for those first 2-3 wks because word-of-mouth won’t help sustain it.” G Feret
I think you’ll find that virtually every film released today is GONE after 3 weeks, at least as a first-run. That’s those in general release, not art films. It’s the nature of the business as it’s evolved into exhibition for the sake of advertising for the real money maker, the after-market DVD’s. Looking at the full history of film exhibition is fascinating in that it has constantly evolved, but particularly so since the 1970’s – single screens to the 3 to 6 screen multiplexs. those multiplexs to the 1990’s Megaplexes with no fewer than 16 screens. All of those screens were created to give justification to holding a film, whose attendance was waning. Giving it a longer life, constantly moving it from the largest, say 700 seat auditorium down to the smallest 100 seat shoebox. Thus, the theatre ran it for the full, six-week run, but put the newer, in demand films in the larger houses. Those six-week commitments are now three weeks, as today’s audience wants instant gratification, demanding to see it on opening weekend or not at all. It’s a precarious situation to say the least. One that takes deep pockets to build new theatres. One that few can or would take.
I predict it will open so “wide” that records will be set. If there’s a theatre NOT playing it, it’s because they don’t want to, OR, they’re only set up for digital and supposedly, Speilberg says no digital screenings, only film so we’ll see. So, given that, I’d say 8,000 plus screens. That’s about one-in-four.
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.
Check out the Village Roadshow’s Gold Class Cinemas website to see that it’s been up and going for sometime in Australia, Singapore and Greece. When in their website, view the video which step-by-step explains what’s happening. They’re not offering concessions, but a fine-dining experience, with a fixed menu pricing at $39 and kids menu at $15. I agree, a night out at these prices is steep, but check out VIP pricing for a concert in a neighborhood near you, and one begins to understand how this is successful.
Chances are 99.98% that the interior shots were done on a sound stage or that the theatre used was different from the Fillmore in New York. The nature of film making requires the company to be able to control the environment completely. That includes sound, lighting, sets, etc. Then too, they could have “dressed down” their set, otherwise known as aging. The Warner Grand in San Pedro has seen countless shoots, from period pieces to contemporary. It’s portrayed east coast theatres, neighborhood palaces, opera houses, New York Broadway houses and once, even in a ‘made-for-TV’ film, was standing in as Radio City Music Hall in one of two movies-of-the-week for the bio of Liberace. The tales that could be told about that shoot. Whew.
The last question is easy to answer and even easier to understand if one’s spent any time in southern California. It’s called “investment.” Real estate is an incredibly lucrative investment in SoCal. Even moreso when one realizes that in Calif., real estate is the ground, not the building – which can be improved, demolished, retrofitted or picked up and moved. Land is King in this neck of the woods. And equity, the queen.
On another note, CIM developed the next door Hollywood and Highland project and have long been eager to acquire another piece of the block to complete the “square” per se. As an olde preservation-minded friend once said, preservationists preserve and developers develope. Seldom do their interests run down the same road. Put another way, with a different twist, developers make their money by building and selling. They have no interest in being operators or investors. They create and sell and move on to the next project. For a prime example of what I mean, check into the recent history of that preservation-minded community a few miles from the Chinese, Pasadena and their currently gutted Raymond Theatre. After years of fighting an incredibly long, ardous and valient effort – the condos are rising.
And lastly, the Chinese is now a six-screen complex, rather than the main house and two side-by-side storefront theatres that it became in the sixties.
I’m told it’s pretty common knowledge within the L.A. ‘preservation’ community that when Mann’s lease is up, the end of the Chinese occurs. That’s only almost 15 years from now. Not a long time in the overall scheme.
Given the situation with the Bay and todays thinking, I’m not surprised. The couple of times I went, specifically because of the organ, I was surprised. First because the organ was completed outsized for the tiny theatre. With it’s huge wooden “pipes” consuming about a third of the right wall in the auditorium, the platform mounted console, sliding into the auditorium and out between hiding curtains, it seemed obvious, the organ was installed just to have a place for it. It just should not have been in that tiny theatre. So maybe, it being in a church is not a bad thing, provided of course, it’s a large church.
If memory serves, there’s a Presbyterian Church on Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena with a phenonomial organ installation that not only is used for Sunday services, but frequently gives recitals and performances in the different styles, including theatre.
As for presentation, it appears the owner/s don’t care. And that is a shame as there’s no excuse for blatant, on-going problems like those described.
Congratulations Bob, You’ve been working on this for quite some time. Everyone should know, Bob is a stickler and when it comes to detail, he invented it. I’m sure he’ll wow ‘em. Nice to see your working with the original team.
Ray
William, do you remember the managers name? I recall a guy named Rob who was arranging Sunday morning screenings of special, found prints, that later grew into a series beyond anyone’s imagination. Can’t recall his last name, but he was originally working for Mann at the Chinese while Ray Howell was managing director there. Thanks
Bill H. above has it correct. Dick McCann, Priteca’s protege, acquired the practice on Priteca’s passing. Any and all drawings Priteca had are likely now with McCann. McCann’s company is now located in the greater LA area. To be certain, architects and others, quite rightly, live off of these archives. That’s true ‘bread & butter’ work for them. In other words. If an architect’s firm that has the original drawings, does not do the work, expect to pay a substantial sum for the drawings.
I’m not sure if Huntington Park is anything like the City of Los Angeles, but if so, you’re in a great deal of luck. In LA, all sets of original blueprints for public buildings are saved and accessible.
Then too, there are firms out there that can digitally, laser scan
and measure a building, in and out and produce a reasonable set of as-built drawings, (which might be needed as it is, since any work done will require the more accurate version.) Obviously, whatever works, will, but it won’t be cheap.
Good Luck and let us know what the outcome is.
Guesstimate way off or not, the bottom line is that most marquees are specific to each theatre, both in measurement and more importantly, its weight. A large sign company needs to be called in first to evaluate and recommend. Hopefully, old photos can be found to at least see what existed from a structual standpoint anyway. It’s not a run-of-the-mill smallish task. As above, good luck and do let us know what was learned.
JG/Geo1,
Email away, be glad to write a bit.
R
nbolmer, use
nbolmer,
What you’re requesting as a baseline figure is such an elusive thing it’s not funny. Are there “ballparks?” Doubtful. For example, if I may. If you work from a point of second-run, having virtually no legs, you could figure 35% of the B.O. vs a minimum of $250 to $400 guaranteed and in advance. But that film would have been played-out in its initial release, since all of the larger plexes in the area, (read, within the zone,) will have played it to death, moving it from the larger auditoriums, continually onto smaller and smaller screens. Say for sake of example, a 15 screener begins the run of the summer blockbuster wannabe in the biggest room of 800 seats. When no longer warranted, they’ll move it from there to a 300er, then 200, followed by the 95 seater where it’ll sit until every person who wants to see it has and more than once. It will have had its ‘second-run’ once it steps down a couple times, but not at second-run ticket prices. The distrib will have offered it for the first several weeks at a maximum percentage and guarantee, say 90%. In it’s third week, the percentage, if the pre-paid guarantee is met, would drop to 75%, then 50% until finally, in its waning weeks, it would be at the forever more percentage of 35%
In pre-megaplex days, single screeners could pick up films dropped from the first-runs, usually after 4 to 6 weeks, particularly with the release of newer product. (there weren’t enough screens to ‘move-over’ a film in the same theatre complex.
I remember a fortuitous booking coup with Crocodile Dundee for are 1400 seat, single screen grand old dame. The film broke over the Thanksgiving holiday and within 3 weeks, most first-runs were dropping it in favor of the upcoming Christmas fare. We ordered and got a print for the Christmas holiday at the usual 35% vs $100 guarantee. The unheardof happened and Dundee shot back to number 1 for that 2 week period. We called in extra help from the 4-corners and ran that film 6 times a day all thru the holiday break from 9am until midnight.
Bottom-line, the only surefire figure is the aforementioned 35% vs. the smallish guarantee. Thats usually good for everything once it’s off of it’s initial release. All else is figured by the particular theatre, number of screens, number of seats, number of shows a day for 7 days, the house ‘nut’, (the house allowance, as it’s otherwise known,) history in the market, and so on.
It’s just not cut-and-dried, or an easy thing to calculate. Personally, I’d try and develope more of a classic format. But that too takes time to develop an audience. Maybe as long as a year, slowly building from 20 patrons to 100 and eventually 150.
If you’d like to email me, post such and I’ll revise my profile for a day and open the email.
nbolmer, The distribs will negotiate directly with you, as you would be your own “booker,” but yes, you have to either acquire an existing theatre, (which they already have all of your mentioned info,) or create a new one. “bigscreeniz’s” archives have plenty for you to see costs of, particularly for the smaller independents. Otherwise, I’d get friendly with whomever in the biz and sponge up the info on dollar costs. It’s the next best thing to actually working at one, which as someone else suggested, might be your best bet. I had friends, who nearly 15 years ago, spent nine months out of two years, touring the western half of the country, doing hands on, eyeball, talk-a-lot, extensive notes and photos research on over 300 coffeehouses before opening there own. Book research, online research, both barely scratched the surface. It was the ABSORTION of the information that culminated in their opening a thriving, 100’s of thousands of dollars business.
Try Googling the aforementioned Alamo Drafthouse as they are far and away the best of this mini-micro-industry. You’re already aware of the Arlington, but there are better, lots better out there. Also, there’s the not to be forgotten, dinner-and-a-movie crowd, (most featuring pizza.) There was a chain of franchises at one time called CinemaGrill, but the few that remain, I understand are in a tough time, eeeeking out a living, (as told by a friend who owns one.)
Have you made any calls to distributors for the majors yet?
Alright, a bit more on my 2 cents. First up, as for distributors in first run, Each studio has there own distribution arm, for the most part – Sony, (the parent) for Columbia, Buena Vista for all things Disney, Paramount is Paramount and a few independents as well as now, DreamWorks; Warner for Warner and some indies and Fox doing the same. In short, there’s no one source for 1st run. As for the deal, You won’t “negotiate” anything. The distribs will tell you what the deal is. For 1st run, it’s frequently a HUGE initial outlay of bucks against 90% of the door. You better have the wherewithal to hang-in there when you have a Box Office bomb. Remember, there’s a reason for megaplexes today. The whole strategem has changed; business models that once worked, are now dead. For example, there’s no-such thing as second-run today, at least as a large, strong and viable business segment. Single screeners are still dying daily.
I’d recommend three sources, if you haven’t gone there already. bigscreenbiz.com, film-tech.com and the current issue of FORTUNE. The first two will tell you to absorb and fully take-in their archives, because it’s all been asked before.
In other words, you’re in for a lot of reading. And as someone else wrote, a lot of homework.
I’m fairly familiar with what you’re looking to do. Am rehabing a theatre to do this and more. I’d be curious to know which end of the business you’re familiar with, as in exhibition or restaurant. Let us know where you’re located as in which state? Where are you looking to set up. Knowing this, we may be able to talk.
Norelco / Dave,
Was not at all bagging on Patsy, and am sorry if that’s what’s thought. My comment was to the point that gutting a theatre the way the Warner was, DESTROYS completely and should never be called adaptive reuse.
Patsy,you wrote “For a city the size of Pittsburgh that building shouldn’t be sadly vacant, but restored and a theatre once again!” Unfortunately, it went through a transformation, one that wasn’t ‘adaptive reuse,’ but a gutting of the building, except for a portion of the massive lobby. Within the shell of the gutted facade, three to four new floors of shops were constructed, creating an indoor mall. Nothing of the original interior was saved. Needless to say the real shame is that even that makeover is now dormant.
This and similar redos have occurred across the country. A notable and successful venture saved the facade only of the former Edwards Theatre on Third St. in Santa Monica. Around that, was built a new multiplex with condos above, heralding the rejuvination of today’s Third Street Promenade. The question is, will it last as the new theatre wasn’t a ‘megaplex?’ Time will tell.
Personally, I dislike calling what happened to the Warner’s makeover “adaptive reuse.” I’d save that term for the remake of theatres into other performance spaces, whether film or live. Gutting the space to make them into completely unrecognizable retail or living spaces is not adaptive but a stripping to rebuild something wholly new.