Absolutely, there was a Warner Bros. in downtown Pittsburgh. It was 20 plus years ago gutted and turned into a three level mall, which has been shuttered for over three years now. A total and complete waste and testament that these types of ‘adaptative reuses’ seldom if ever succeed. Rehabilitation and restoration can and do work. The real pity is that the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust has come to the rescue of no fewer than three downtown theatres including the Byhum/Fulton Theatre, Heinz Hall/Loews Theatre and the Harris, which was one of the longest running XXX theatres in the country. These together with The Benedum Center/Penn Theatre and the new O'Reilly Theatre make up quite the cultural destination that goes a long way in revitalizing Pittsburgh’s downtown. Unfortunately, the destructive makeover of the incredible Warner is located too far away from the cluster of the other theatres and the damage was long prior to the makeover of the them.
The last movie I saw at the Warner was the road show version of 2001 A.S.O in the summer of 1968. (Dang, that was a long time ago.)
There were a gazillion community theatres all around Pittsburgh in many of the Boroughs. You already mentioned The Sewickley, but, Baden, Ambridge, Alliquipa, Coraopolis, McKees Rocks, Mt. Oliver, Bellvue, Avalon, New Kensington, Penn Hills, Shadyside, E. Liberty, Bloomfield and Crafton all had there own, (I believe independents, as I know Coraopolis’s was,)and of course, the outter lying areas, including Paoli, Chicora, Butler, Brady’s Bend, East Brady and Oil City can be included. All of western PA was covered with these smallish “shows” as we used to call them. If memory serves, most had from 400 to 600 seats and they were fairly older houses. It could well be they were converted store fronts as Pittsburgh played a big part in the development of the film exhibition business.
I suspect if there are to be any digital online downloads of feature films, first, it is in the very, very, very distant future and second, it will be done by the major studio distributors themselves; not by anyone else. There’s far too much at stake to allow it to be done otherwise. In fact, we’re talking about the continuing existance of this country’s major entertainment form. I seriously doubt the studio’s/distrib’s would give up DVD’s in favor of digital downloads at this point in time. There’s just too much money to be made with their sales and rentals. Notice, I wrote of sales first, followed by rentals. That’s the opposite of the experience with VHS 15 to 20 years ago.
Unlike music labels and producers, which have lost the battle with downloads and consequently, the demise of a major industry, (much of this caused by their ineptness and assumption they could continue in their old ways of putting out mediocre albums having but one hit single, and charging $14+,)the film industry invented exhibition and has and will continue to protect it at all costs. To do otherwise, will see its rapid collapse. Put another way, no one will put up the 50 million plus dollars to make a film, and a near like amount to market it, on the gamble of at least breaking even, without some assurance of at least making those millions back.
In short, there’s much more at stake here than with a band, putting up there own money, to produce a CD and get it to the populace via internet.
Good starting point is whoever is listed as the distributor of the DVD. Chances are, they also still control the “exhibition rights” if the movie isn’t too old. A call to them and whoever handles licensing, should get some answers. Otherwise, go to the imdb.com website, under “company credits” to see who the then listed distributor in whichever country, is listed. Film exhibition is a business, not a hobby, which means some effort is involved. Not trying to be a jerk here, but I suppose that’s why it’s called “work.” Once you get the hang of it, after a few calls, it gets easier. Now, whether or not they’ll grant you the rights, with ongoing certanty, that’s a different matter entirely. Good Luck and let us know.
GOOD LUCK getting the city fathers to issue you an occupancy permit for a shut down, dilapidated, no utilities turned on building. I believe it’s called “health and safety” that would be more than their concern. And quite rightly at that.
Tordavis, your answer is in the frontice piece on every DVD, which reads something like, “This DVD is for the personal or private home use of the holder and is not for public exhibition …” This means, simply put, a DVD is not for screening, free or for pay, without obtaining the “License” for public exhibition. Said license is issued by the holder of the “Exhibition” rights, usually known as the “Distributor.” And then, there are two types of distributors for each work. One grants “theatrical” rights, and another “non-theatrical” rights. Theatrical exhibition is for the public-at-large and the screening is advertised to them. Non-theatrical exhibition is to closed, non-general public groups, such as schools, hospitals, planes, prisons, library’s and the screening is only promoted within the group, not publicly. Whether there is a charge for viewing doen’t enter into obtaining rights and licensing.
Keep in mind too, that exhibition rights are not tied to the medium used. It makes no difference if the piece is a 35mm or 16mm print, or a VHS tape or DVD.
Boy, talk about putting a positive spin on an otherwise sad story. Obviously, but sorry, I don’t see this as a good thing. Maybe I’m too much into restoration, rather than the gutting and “adaptive reuse” of a former landmark. Also, I may be prejudiced, but aren’t most theatres of ten or fewer auditoriums closing today, to be replaced by megaplexes of 14 plus screens, especially in the burbs? I suppose when this fails, the next option will be to go the route of too many former palaces – retail – three stories worth, like Pittsburgh’s former Warner Bros. theatre downtown.
Piffka, you’re partly correct on the IMDb site. It’s not the DVD distributor you’re looking for. It’s the FILM distributor as they hold the Public exhibition rights. DVD distribution is for the Private, home use ONLY. For example, if I want to show ‘Saving Private Ryan’ for my movies-in-the-park film series, which I’m screening with a digital projector, renting the DVD from the local Hollybuster video store; I call Dreamworks Distributing in Glendale, CA. I get the booking, paying the advance and have full rights to show the film to the public. They and they alone hold the Public exhibition rights, regardless of the form, be it 35mm, 16mm, VHS, (who’d wanna,) or DVD.
Gentlemen, Not to discourage, rather to advise by way of being an old hand at this. Digital Cinema and projecting DVDs are two, completely different and distinct media. Please understand, DVDs, in today’s format are still TV. That translates to 525 LINES of resolution per picture. That’s regardless of whether the picture is 2 ft. high or 20 ft. high. The number of lines don’t increase or decrease. Even with HDTV, your only getting roughly 1100 lines and that’s still far less than the clarity of film or Digital Cinema, which is measured in pixels, not lines.
As for “licensing,” I STRONGLY recommend you talk to an independent theatre owner or go back and link to some of the prior suggested readings in this thread. There’s a distinct difference between public exhibition and private, closed group screenings, i.e. Theatrical vs. Non-Theatrical screenings. Also, to rbehnke5, I imagine Criterion, who handles both theatrical and non-theatrical bookings of Fox product told you there would be a minimum dollar amount versus a 35% of the gross. That’s what most repertory theatres pay, regardless of who the distributor is. Believe me, you can’t just go out and purchase a DVD of a Fox film, play it and then report a gross of whatever you choose and then pay 35% of that. The business just doesn’t work that way.
Do some homework guys, forget digital, because if it were economical, legal and of a sufficient quality for all concerned, don’t you think everyone would be using it?
S-78, the only savings for a theatre operator that I could foresee would be the difference in the cost of “shipping” the film. Instead of a “hard” film, one would be supplied digitally. Other than that, all costs would most likely remain the same. The real savings would be to the film distributor, not the exhibitor. I wouldn’t think there’d be any change in the “licensing fee.” Most of the opening week’s revenue would still go to the distributor and the bulk of a theatre’s profits would remain at the concession stand.
Ironic as it is, a night club is really a restaurant, a concert hall is really a bar and a movie theatre is only a fast-food joint.
The Egytian’s makeover is not so much “restoration” as it is “adaptive reuse,” and a very sensitive one at that. I don’t believe anyone living in L.A., with knowledge of the available alternatives for this theatre, begrudge the American Cinemateque in any way. In fact, too many historic or preservation minded organizations in this country don’t understand that in order to make their efforts viable, the end result must be monetarily feasible. Otherwise, these grand old dammes are left as show pieces only, a “museum piece” that just doesn’t work or warrant the huge investment to save.
What the Cinemateque accomplished was actually quite remarkable, given the amount of money put into the project. Today, we have a major, seven-day-a-week, functioning theatre showcase, presenting restored and sometimes forgotten films.
I have to disagree with another, previous post here, that the Northridge quake had something to do with this re-do. The steel tubing now running the length of the walls, are to support rolling speaker panels to present film in surround.
Just a quick update/correction. The Stanley Warner chain, borne of the consent decrees of the early 50’s was indeed acquired by Pacific Drive-In Theatre Corp, (as it was originally known,) but in 1961. Included in that group was today’s Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.
The Beverly, as it was last known as, was razed in 1989, by Columbia Savings, who were intent on building a parking garage. In fact, the infant L.A. Conservancy, got word the theatre was being dismantled and when initial queries were made, the demolition company was told to stop dismantling and instead were offered a $100,000 bonus to drop the ceiling in one day. They succeeded, receiving the bonus and preventing any saving of this once elegant neighborhood palace.
Ironically perhaps, as this was the same Columbia Savings that became infamous for its Charles Keating scandal. The hole created after clearing the Beverly’s debris, remained a hole in the ground for over 10 years.
Absolutely, there was a Warner Bros. in downtown Pittsburgh. It was 20 plus years ago gutted and turned into a three level mall, which has been shuttered for over three years now. A total and complete waste and testament that these types of ‘adaptative reuses’ seldom if ever succeed. Rehabilitation and restoration can and do work. The real pity is that the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust has come to the rescue of no fewer than three downtown theatres including the Byhum/Fulton Theatre, Heinz Hall/Loews Theatre and the Harris, which was one of the longest running XXX theatres in the country. These together with The Benedum Center/Penn Theatre and the new O'Reilly Theatre make up quite the cultural destination that goes a long way in revitalizing Pittsburgh’s downtown. Unfortunately, the destructive makeover of the incredible Warner is located too far away from the cluster of the other theatres and the damage was long prior to the makeover of the them.
The last movie I saw at the Warner was the road show version of 2001 A.S.O in the summer of 1968. (Dang, that was a long time ago.)
There were a gazillion community theatres all around Pittsburgh in many of the Boroughs. You already mentioned The Sewickley, but, Baden, Ambridge, Alliquipa, Coraopolis, McKees Rocks, Mt. Oliver, Bellvue, Avalon, New Kensington, Penn Hills, Shadyside, E. Liberty, Bloomfield and Crafton all had there own, (I believe independents, as I know Coraopolis’s was,)and of course, the outter lying areas, including Paoli, Chicora, Butler, Brady’s Bend, East Brady and Oil City can be included. All of western PA was covered with these smallish “shows” as we used to call them. If memory serves, most had from 400 to 600 seats and they were fairly older houses. It could well be they were converted store fronts as Pittsburgh played a big part in the development of the film exhibition business.
I suspect if there are to be any digital online downloads of feature films, first, it is in the very, very, very distant future and second, it will be done by the major studio distributors themselves; not by anyone else. There’s far too much at stake to allow it to be done otherwise. In fact, we’re talking about the continuing existance of this country’s major entertainment form. I seriously doubt the studio’s/distrib’s would give up DVD’s in favor of digital downloads at this point in time. There’s just too much money to be made with their sales and rentals. Notice, I wrote of sales first, followed by rentals. That’s the opposite of the experience with VHS 15 to 20 years ago.
Unlike music labels and producers, which have lost the battle with downloads and consequently, the demise of a major industry, (much of this caused by their ineptness and assumption they could continue in their old ways of putting out mediocre albums having but one hit single, and charging $14+,)the film industry invented exhibition and has and will continue to protect it at all costs. To do otherwise, will see its rapid collapse. Put another way, no one will put up the 50 million plus dollars to make a film, and a near like amount to market it, on the gamble of at least breaking even, without some assurance of at least making those millions back.
In short, there’s much more at stake here than with a band, putting up there own money, to produce a CD and get it to the populace via internet.
Good starting point is whoever is listed as the distributor of the DVD. Chances are, they also still control the “exhibition rights” if the movie isn’t too old. A call to them and whoever handles licensing, should get some answers. Otherwise, go to the imdb.com website, under “company credits” to see who the then listed distributor in whichever country, is listed. Film exhibition is a business, not a hobby, which means some effort is involved. Not trying to be a jerk here, but I suppose that’s why it’s called “work.” Once you get the hang of it, after a few calls, it gets easier. Now, whether or not they’ll grant you the rights, with ongoing certanty, that’s a different matter entirely. Good Luck and let us know.
GOOD LUCK getting the city fathers to issue you an occupancy permit for a shut down, dilapidated, no utilities turned on building. I believe it’s called “health and safety” that would be more than their concern. And quite rightly at that.
Tordavis, your answer is in the frontice piece on every DVD, which reads something like, “This DVD is for the personal or private home use of the holder and is not for public exhibition …” This means, simply put, a DVD is not for screening, free or for pay, without obtaining the “License” for public exhibition. Said license is issued by the holder of the “Exhibition” rights, usually known as the “Distributor.” And then, there are two types of distributors for each work. One grants “theatrical” rights, and another “non-theatrical” rights. Theatrical exhibition is for the public-at-large and the screening is advertised to them. Non-theatrical exhibition is to closed, non-general public groups, such as schools, hospitals, planes, prisons, library’s and the screening is only promoted within the group, not publicly. Whether there is a charge for viewing doen’t enter into obtaining rights and licensing.
Keep in mind too, that exhibition rights are not tied to the medium used. It makes no difference if the piece is a 35mm or 16mm print, or a VHS tape or DVD.
Boy, talk about putting a positive spin on an otherwise sad story. Obviously, but sorry, I don’t see this as a good thing. Maybe I’m too much into restoration, rather than the gutting and “adaptive reuse” of a former landmark. Also, I may be prejudiced, but aren’t most theatres of ten or fewer auditoriums closing today, to be replaced by megaplexes of 14 plus screens, especially in the burbs? I suppose when this fails, the next option will be to go the route of too many former palaces – retail – three stories worth, like Pittsburgh’s former Warner Bros. theatre downtown.
Piffka, you’re partly correct on the IMDb site. It’s not the DVD distributor you’re looking for. It’s the FILM distributor as they hold the Public exhibition rights. DVD distribution is for the Private, home use ONLY. For example, if I want to show ‘Saving Private Ryan’ for my movies-in-the-park film series, which I’m screening with a digital projector, renting the DVD from the local Hollybuster video store; I call Dreamworks Distributing in Glendale, CA. I get the booking, paying the advance and have full rights to show the film to the public. They and they alone hold the Public exhibition rights, regardless of the form, be it 35mm, 16mm, VHS, (who’d wanna,) or DVD.
Gentlemen, Not to discourage, rather to advise by way of being an old hand at this. Digital Cinema and projecting DVDs are two, completely different and distinct media. Please understand, DVDs, in today’s format are still TV. That translates to 525 LINES of resolution per picture. That’s regardless of whether the picture is 2 ft. high or 20 ft. high. The number of lines don’t increase or decrease. Even with HDTV, your only getting roughly 1100 lines and that’s still far less than the clarity of film or Digital Cinema, which is measured in pixels, not lines.
As for “licensing,” I STRONGLY recommend you talk to an independent theatre owner or go back and link to some of the prior suggested readings in this thread. There’s a distinct difference between public exhibition and private, closed group screenings, i.e. Theatrical vs. Non-Theatrical screenings. Also, to rbehnke5, I imagine Criterion, who handles both theatrical and non-theatrical bookings of Fox product told you there would be a minimum dollar amount versus a 35% of the gross. That’s what most repertory theatres pay, regardless of who the distributor is. Believe me, you can’t just go out and purchase a DVD of a Fox film, play it and then report a gross of whatever you choose and then pay 35% of that. The business just doesn’t work that way.
Do some homework guys, forget digital, because if it were economical, legal and of a sufficient quality for all concerned, don’t you think everyone would be using it?
S-78, the only savings for a theatre operator that I could foresee would be the difference in the cost of “shipping” the film. Instead of a “hard” film, one would be supplied digitally. Other than that, all costs would most likely remain the same. The real savings would be to the film distributor, not the exhibitor. I wouldn’t think there’d be any change in the “licensing fee.” Most of the opening week’s revenue would still go to the distributor and the bulk of a theatre’s profits would remain at the concession stand.
Ironic as it is, a night club is really a restaurant, a concert hall is really a bar and a movie theatre is only a fast-food joint.
The Egytian’s makeover is not so much “restoration” as it is “adaptive reuse,” and a very sensitive one at that. I don’t believe anyone living in L.A., with knowledge of the available alternatives for this theatre, begrudge the American Cinemateque in any way. In fact, too many historic or preservation minded organizations in this country don’t understand that in order to make their efforts viable, the end result must be monetarily feasible. Otherwise, these grand old dammes are left as show pieces only, a “museum piece” that just doesn’t work or warrant the huge investment to save.
What the Cinemateque accomplished was actually quite remarkable, given the amount of money put into the project. Today, we have a major, seven-day-a-week, functioning theatre showcase, presenting restored and sometimes forgotten films.
I have to disagree with another, previous post here, that the Northridge quake had something to do with this re-do. The steel tubing now running the length of the walls, are to support rolling speaker panels to present film in surround.
Just a quick update/correction. The Stanley Warner chain, borne of the consent decrees of the early 50’s was indeed acquired by Pacific Drive-In Theatre Corp, (as it was originally known,) but in 1961. Included in that group was today’s Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.
The Beverly, as it was last known as, was razed in 1989, by Columbia Savings, who were intent on building a parking garage. In fact, the infant L.A. Conservancy, got word the theatre was being dismantled and when initial queries were made, the demolition company was told to stop dismantling and instead were offered a $100,000 bonus to drop the ceiling in one day. They succeeded, receiving the bonus and preventing any saving of this once elegant neighborhood palace.
Ironically perhaps, as this was the same Columbia Savings that became infamous for its Charles Keating scandal. The hole created after clearing the Beverly’s debris, remained a hole in the ground for over 10 years.