Showing 576 - 600 of 722 comments
AMC didn’t close any GC theaters outright but it did close a few that were a bit out of date including the Leigh Valley Mall 1-8 in Allentown, PA.
Really? They’ll probably make it look more AMC-like. AMC’s new constructions have awsome seats.
It’s a problem with all Loews Theaters actually – the worst is the ill designed Pallisades Center, but even in CT it’s a problem – the ticket line at the LCE Plainville takes 20 minutes to buy tickets. Hopefully this will all change, AMC is pretty good at running a movie theater, Clifton Commons is well run. They also know how to schedule showtimes so that things aren’t all starting around the same time. Theres a reason why AMC is the most successful chain in the country…
Even Regal Cinemas in Phillipsburg charges less ($8.75) – considering this one is kinda of in the middle of nowhere it is weird that they charge $9.50 – they may bring neighbors to the movie but they don’t have prices (or customer service) that are very friendly to the neighborhoods they serve, they are more expensive than the big chains that provide better customer service and have nicer theaters.
This one doesn’t even have “true” stadium seating (with 18 inch rises throughout), Clearview’s attempt at stadium seating here is a joke.
Yeah and a few years ago they upgraded the theater to look more like a Regal, including changing signs, lobby areas and the color scheme of the theaters themselves.
Also too Marquee Theaters has been closing others, including a 14-screener (formerly owned by UA, the McAuthur) in Texas.
Bassicly Jnjeisen your saying your customers aren’t smart and would boycott your cinema because you showed a controversal movie? I was offended by Get Rich or Die Trying but I didn’t boycott any theater showing it. People aren’t dumb – if your customers knew how insulting you were to their intelligence essentally calling them backwards, they wouldn’t spend a dime in your theater even if you are offering popcorn, soda and a movie ticket for five bucks.
The more postings I read and respond to I think I wonder if weâ€™ve proved an important point or have abused this message board for attacks. I think that the fundamental importance of site like Cinema Treasures is that it studies the evolution and history of cinema exhibition. What this message board has proved is that hurdles still exist to films, but one breakout film can change that. Brokeback Mountain is a modest hit when put up against King Kong and War of the Worlds as jnjeisen contends. His theater is currently showing The Ringer, which has made less money than Brokeback Mountain.
While Brokeback Mountain is it a commercial film itâ€™s subjected to attacks. The film, to me, doesnâ€™t glorify homosexuality â€" itâ€™s simply a good love story. I always find it ironic that those that attack certain films are the ones that never see them. Context is an important consideration when addressing any work of art â€" you may be offended by a lyric in a song but without the context it sits in the meaning cannot really be understood. On the surface The Ringer it appears may be making fun of the mentally retarded, it doesnâ€™t- but someone who watches commercials casually may think the film is mean spirited. (The Ringer isnâ€™t, it nicely develops all of its characters)
Brokeback Mountain says these things happen. If it was the story of an interracial heterosexual couple it would only be the target of the Klan. (I wonder if Focus will come under heat the way Miramax was for having an anti-Catholic agenda with Priests, Dogma, and The Magdalene Sisters because there next film is a romantic comedy about an interracial couple, Something New). I doubt this film will â€œconvertâ€ anyone to homosexuality; it didnâ€™t convert me or any of the other people I know who have seen it. On those grounds I donâ€™t think itâ€™s controversial, it may take you beyond your comfort zone a bit (Iâ€™m not saying itâ€™s an easy film to watch) but itâ€™s certainly a good one for intelligent audiences hungry for bold entertainment.
Yet, if anything these posts conclude that topics are still taboo. In the South, pre-Civil Rights it used to be scenes in which African Americans werenâ€™t portrayed as slaves. Theater owners donâ€™t have the right to omit scenes from a print now, thankfully. The fact this film is so controversial is stupid to me. For better or worse Brokeback Mountain has become a landmark, not just in American pop culture, but also in the study of cinema exhibition. Noting that most of the posts here are valid, I still have no idea what this â€˜Pooh Bearâ€™ business is, nor why people its poster godsmonster has only chose to post on this issue. The core of the debate, however is valid and from this thread you get a sense of how cinemas are programmed â€" what its owners think will be successful and what wonâ€™t. Sadly I think the audiencesâ€™ intelligence is underestimated, Iâ€™m able to put aside personal politics and see a film that I disagree with because Iâ€™m always interested in hearing a viewpoint Iâ€™m not politically comfortable with. I donâ€™t think itâ€™s a sin to admit Brokeback Mountain is a good film that people want to see.
Jnjeisen runs a twin screen second run theater. I donâ€™t know what type of product he books but Iâ€™m willing to assume that Brokeback Mountain isnâ€™t the type of film heâ€™d typically play unless it won the Oscar for Best Picture (even then he wouldnâ€™t, we know). This is not because of the filmâ€™s sexual politics but because the film is a word of mouth film, not one that is booked on 2000+ screens it’s first weekend.
When a first run 17-plex doesnâ€™t show a movie thatâ€™s been widely successful itâ€™s not only a bad business decision but also one that is one based on homophobia. Strange personal attacks aside this has been a valuable debate on the issue proving that movies can still be controversial, debated, and shocking, even in this day and age of instant access to pornography online and uncensored satellite radio. Knowing this Iâ€™m prepared to conclude that films that are mature, honest, and frank are in danger of being considered controversial no matter how desensitized we become.
This one has had three owners, Regal built in it 1999, in 2001 it was aquired by Megastar Theaters (which sold most of its theaters to AMC, this one remained a Megastar) then purchased by Marquee Theatres. From what I gather this was one of those random Regal locations built during the boom that failed as National Amusements rescreened with Eastfield Mall and the new West Springfield 1-15.
There are plenty of worce theaters in New York. The lack of leg room at the Quad Cinema (as well as the lack of stadium seating with screens low to the ground…not fun since half the movies there are subtitled!) pops to mind. The Empire is probably the best mainstream mutiplex in Manhatten despite the fact there are hidden levels too it (theaters 7 and 8 are located on a half level that can throw you if your not paying close attention, but they have overstuffed leather seats, my guess is they are hidden away for special screenings). The presentation has always been good, Most of the time I’m ussually in one of those small upstairs theaters, but I have been in a few of the larger houses as well and I can’t complain about it…okay, one complaint, but not against AMC – that food court closed, I miss CPK ASAP.
It will be impressive considering that it’ll be nominated for Oscars and will probably go on to gross over $70M – much more impressive than Hoodwinked (the number one movie in America) or In The Mix considering the hurdles it had to over come to get there. Sorry, but can be considered a hit, after all it has taken in more than doubled its production budget, not many movies can actually claim this. Obviously there is a market for this picture, even in markets where indie film is rare (let alone films with homosexual subtext, but this is an A-list picture with stars, not a limited-apeal queer movie from Strand Releasing). If the film does $100M can you honestly say there is no market for it in a certain part of this country? If a film made $100M and I thought it offended my morals I think I’d be interested in seeing it just to understand why it did so well and why it caught on. I feel insulted by Napeoplon Dynomite and can’t understand why it caught on, but it did. Considering what it is 83rd is impressive – after all it’s still platforming out. If its nominated for enough Oscars it will be playing at every 6-plex in the country.
Would you ever book a movie, advertise show times and then pull it even after you entered into a contract to show it because you found the content to be offensive? In a way that is doing a disservice to your audience by falsely advertising a picture.
And how would you even define morals- would you play a film thatâ€™s pornographic in terms of violence like Hostel because you think it’ll be a hit? Or a movie like Britney Spear’s Crossroads which is an evil tool designed to teach teen and pre-teen girls everywhere the one person to lose your virginity to is a dangerous looking older guy because he drives a nice car, and the film also grabbles with the abortion issue? Did you show that movie?
I’m Catholic and heterosexual, as well as a shareholder in GE and am disgusted by Larry Miller’s business practices in this situation. I feel Universal should pull all of his product, including his print of King Kong; we should be out of the business of Megaplex 17. If he were a bigger chain, like an AMC or a Regal the issue would be dangerous, if both AMC and Regal found the film offensive youâ€™d be blocked from a good share of the market.
I wonder what he did with that extra screen, letting a theater go dark for a week is probably a good movie from an economics 101. If anything Miller created a demand for it at near-by theaters, calling attention to it. I think when people go to the movies they have some understanding of what a certain movie is, you donâ€™t wonder into a film without any clue of what youâ€™re getting in to.
The fact that is offensive is they passed after it had been booked. Nine Songs is a diffrent case – presumably it could be banned as a community standard (it has actual graphic sex). I wouldn’t expect Megaplex to play that movie but this one is a.– a hit, b.-crossing into the mainstream and c.-had showtimes advertised. To say all of SLC or Utah is uncultured is unfair (remember Utah houses the most important film festival to independent cinema!) What is so offensive is it was censored after it was booked and it was considred a busness decission. It’s dumb that it has been blown out of context here with religious attacks and attacks on Utah – any attack should be directed at and only at Larry Miller.
What does any of this have to do with theatrical exhibition.
YES, but they booked the film and had an agreement with Focus to show this highly successful (it has the number one per screen average in the country) and had even published showtimes for it. At that point they are doing a diservice to a movie going public by advertising something and then pulling it, it wasn’t a fluke, they had intended on showing it but got scared off. I suport the right that a theater owner has to not show a film (see the various posts that I have added to the Megaplex 17 site debating the isssue) but they should have known what the movie was and never opted to show it.
My anger over the issue comes as I am a GE shareholder and agree Universal ought to not grant a licence to show any more product at this site, give it to Cinemark or whoever else has screens in the area – they should not go back on their contractual obligation to run the film, even after they informed and misled the public by advertising showtimes for it. It’s astonishing that Megaplex doesn’t know what types of product it books, first of all and second of all that this film is controversal. The Family Stone, which is playing there, has a fairly complex storyline involving a family accepting of their queer son and his African American boyfriend yet it has caused no controversy and nor should it.
The best article on the issue is here:
I don’t know of any theater that has ever had a contractual obligation to show a successful film and pulled it because of a business decission. It leads me to belive that there was potentally a threat of protest by SLC Mormons considering Larry Miller produces mormon pictures (which you might not know if you live outside of Utah).
Miller says that he’s not a “community censor” and belives that pulling a movie with the top per screen average in the country is a business decission, I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t preform as well as say Rumor Has It.. or The Ringer.
Right but the theater had agreed to show it, posted showtimes and then pulled it breaking a licence agreement with Focus Features, whereas AMC didn’t play The Aristocrats and Friedly didn’t play Fahrenheit 9/11 because they didn’t like the content but they were responsable enough to know in advance what those movies were instead of pulling it at the zero hour like Megaplex 17 did. The danger is that if Regal and AMC don’t like your movie and say “we’re not going to play it” then you’re blocked from most American screens. Megaplex 17 should have never booked the film or published showtimes for it, it’s corporate headquarters should know in advance what type of product is going to be playing. If they had been better educated on a corporate level they could avoided all of this debate.
Exsactly. And too Laurie, you forgot that The Family Stone is about a liberal New England family that is loveing and accepting of their gay son and they treat his interacial boyfriend like of the family. Rightfully so that movie didn’t garner any controversy. Both Family Stone (which truth be told I actually found a bit obnoxious) and Brokeback on certain levels are about tollerance, which seems to not be a business practice at the Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons.
I’m hoping this get national attention and Miller is forced to release some form of a statement beyond the fact he pulled the movie because he didn’t think it would preform well in the market and he had no idea what the movie was about.
I saw a listing for Showcase 1-11: I’m guessing that was the combined total between this and the former Showcase across the street (before it was replaced with the 15-screener across the street which is arguably one of the highest quality mutliplexes I’ve ever been to). So that had 6? and this one had 1, 2 and 4 at diffrent phases in its life. I also saw that the one across the street opened as a twin, there is a photo in the Cinema Treasures book.
Whats weird is it was on the bill, had showtimes listed and then “bam” wasn’t there. It’s pathtic that Larry Miller sites that it was a business decission to pull the movie – it had the highest per screen average of any release, face it the movie is a success. I also laugh when people call Brokeback Mountain a propaganda movie – the people involved with this movie are streight as a matter of fact, they just wanted to make a good film.
Other theaters have refused to book movies and they have the right not to show something, leases have provisions against NC-17 rated movies for example. AMC refused to show The Aristocrats last summer and Friedly Theaters refused to show Fahrenheit 9/11, but they didn’t schedule proformances and then pull it on opening day. Miller aparently (acording to KUTV) didn’t even know what the movie was, and then later claims that he pulled it because he didn’t think in that market it would do much business. I have to disagree, in conservative markets it has done well acording to Focus Features, the movie is succussful.
Now if Urban Outfitters launched its own chain of movie theaters…think about how cool that’d be…
Another observation I observed is staff doesn’t care about picture presentation. I went to see Memoris of a Geisha at the Clearview Kinnelon 11 last Sunday and told some idiotic usher about about a problem with the framing, he interupted me in the middle, calling his manager by saying “yo, we got a problem up in some theater in the back, go check on it” – thats all. It wasn’t fixed, I didn’t want to sound snobby and get into the importance of mise-en-scene in a movie like that, but… as a young person myself though I take offense to that last comment, I’m ussually the first person to go out and tell them the pictures out of focus or framing. Some chains are high quality, customer driven and they do care (National Amusements), other chains are trying to get you in and out (Regal Cinemas and Clearview). N/A’s aproach is interesting – make going to the movies an event, by doing so they charge significantly more but it’s worth it for the high quality snacks and atmopshere, they encougage you to hang around (and spend some money).
With that said I’d love to see the return of the intermission. Peter Jackson has enough clout, if he said “mandatory 10 minute intermission” they’d do it, even though chains themselves are reluctant to. Bollywood movies ussually have one built in to the story, National Amusements choses it off and keep the film going, but if they did offer an intermission I probably would be inclined to get candy for the next half of the show. If anything Peter Jackson can be unfair to the bladder after that Pepsi you upsided because it was only a quarter more than the medium.
I was there over the weekend, in theater #4, one of those larger houses and had a problem finding a seat, the theater was only 25% filled but a lot of the seats (which have been in opperation for 11 years now) are falling apart or bent in odd ways from use. And this is a first run house that charges more than Clifton Commons and Essex Green (due to the fact they don’t offer student rate anymore, the adult rate of 9.50 is equal to that of Clifton). The customer service is good and the snack bar has been upgraded several times (they now serve chicken fingers), but quite honestly I spend more time in the auditrium then I do at the concession stand or in those repainted hallways.
Clearview is a small and frugal chain, they’re building two new screens at Cinema 10 (without stadium seating) and have replaces the seats there, yet Cinema 12’s seats are uncomfortable and in need of retirement. The theater I was in was in simular shape to that of an 11 year old discount house. Granted they are a small chain, but they charge the same price (or more) as the larger chains theaters so we should all demand the same quality movie going. I probably won’t be there again for a while.
East Hanover opened in December 1993, one of the first in what the company called the Star design, which became the standard (the curved signage reading Loews Theater). This one actually oppened as Loews before Sony aquired the company (and the name was changed to Sony Theaters before eventually being changed back to Loews with the opening of the New Brunswick 18-plex).
It was nice at the time, now its standard and even outdated, the seats are still original (although better mainatined than Cinema 12, which is starting to become as run down as a discount house). Parking is a mess, they used to have security directing traffic on weekend nights, with a sectioned off “drop off zone” around the back to facilitate the movement of traffic in front of the theater.
I agree with Justin, all the current theaters in Morris County will most likely take a hit, but East Hanover, as you point out has always showed a bit more upscale product like Brokeback Mountain then the new Rockaway theater will (aside from that standard one or two rare films they’ll undoubtably show early in their opperation to decifier if there could be a market for it at the theater). If Rockaway becomes too popular I wonder if they will look in to upgrades or discount pricing (Loews responded to Edgewater Multiplex by drastically lowering prices in Ridgefield Park), but Route 10 is a well traveled highway itself, as is 46. Cinema 12 and Cinema 10 will survive, it’ll just be easier to find a parking space (although you have to wonder if AMC’s prices are lower or equal to Cinema 10 and 12’s $9.50 – will Clearview be forced to adapt by offering stadium seating and a rewards program like Moviewatcehrs?).