when I was growing up there were movie theaters of all screen sizes and capicity. There were a few mega plexes but also grand old theaters with 50' screens.
By the 90's they were mostly closed save a few in the burbs where they are the center of town and a few in the gold coast. Now the 2 in the gold coast are gone as well. There is literally 2 movie theaters in the downtown area of Chicago. Thats it. 4 years ago there were at least 5 by my count and mabye maore. Is this the trend in other cities? Whats going on here? Hollywood cries its losing money yet the simple ability to walk to the neighborhood theater has been taken away and the megaplex is retarded - i avoid cramped theaters with screaming teenagers and shit all over the floors.
I think its time to stop supporting corporate owned theaters who price out the independant theaters from getting the movies and force the industry to return to respectability and make going to the movies an adventure again. Start with the building, its the first impresion of the product theyre selling.
The simple answer to your question would be affordable DVDs, home cinema systems and the tendency to see movies as an "experience" (better sound and picture) rather than an artform. Most likely, we see more movies now than ever before, but at home.
better question is this; given the times as they are, why are there no movie theaters in airports? if i am going to be stuck in an airport for 10 hours because of weather, i'd prefer to spend my time in a theater rather than wondering if some senator is going to get a "wide stance" on me...
a-f hit the nail on the head. The rise of the VHS casette, and now the DVD, has spelled the demise of the movie theater. Prior to that you had to go see the movie in the theater since you never knew when you might get another shot a seeing it.
Today there's no incentive for the theater. I can wait 6 months and own the movie for less than a couple tickets in the theater costs. Not to mention the overpriced snacks, noisy teenagers, etc.
But why are the snacks and tickets overpriced? Many of these neighborhood theaters had fairly cheap prices - mine growing up was $1.50 vs. 6.00 at the cineplex. One day they stopped getting new releases. The theater wasnt allowed movies by the studio untill they were out on VHS. WTF? This was a 1000 seat theater that was packed every Fri and Sat. I suspect some sort of distribution monopoly but I cant find any articles or data so far this morning.
It just pisses me off the complete waste of our urban fabric and lifestyle. People complain about how monotonous and homogenized life is becoming but they dont do anything about it. Protesting and shit aint going to do it. You need to vote with your dollars. Support your local theaters and stores.
the incentive is the extra experience available via the architecture of the theatre...seeing lawrence of arabia on 70mm film projected on the massive screen of detroit's fox theatre was much more impressive than watching it on a television set. hell, just being in the fox theater is worth the price of admission.
i agree - there is just something about the size of the screen. i enjoy movies at home too - but theres still an experiance to the big screen that only size and sound can give you
you guys need to come to MPLS we have some great neighborhood theaters and if you wait a little bit for first runs or art films to get out of the chains it becomes quite affordable...
I think its the distribution thats so expensive. In my town there are a couple art houses that have recently gone under or are struggling to stay alive, and they have been citing the distribution costs as what's been forcing them out.
Neither one of them were purpose built movie houses though, one had screens so small that I always swore I'd never go back. The other was an opera house that had horrible acoustics.
I grew up in a smallish midwestern town with an awesome old Fox Theatre. The balcony was still open when I was a kid and I used to love sitting in the front row and leaning against the railing. In the summer they had kid's matinées all week long showing Benji movies and bizarre Pipi Longstocking movies. Our parents would drop us off and we'd run wild with our $2 for refreshments. I still feel badly for ushers babysitting a couple hundred kids hopped up on sugar for 2 hours.
netflix is horrible. I dont see how waiting for movies is an advancement. Also - movies at home, even at my friends house where he has a 10' projector - not the same as a giant screen with gut shaking accoustics.
when i was in high school, i used to love going to the temple theatre in saginaw. this was before the recent renovation featured on the website and the place used to be pretty dilapidated. it was run by a small group of senior citizens who had some kind of movie club than ran the theatre and typically put on an old movie every other friday night. the theater was huge & could hold hundreds of guests but typically there was only like 30-50 people in the audience. showed some really old movies like the 1936 lloyd's of london
one of my favorite memories was wandering all the way to the top of the theater and then being surprised when the projectionist popped out of the door and offered to show us the inside. it was fascinating to see just how large the film rolls were, especially the 70mm versions.
I love nextflix - but I will admit, there are some movies out there where seeing them on the big screen is a must.
I'm assuming high rents are driving theaters out of the middle of big cities. The movie situation in san francisco right now is pretty good - there are only 2 mega-plexes, which often have the same movies showing at both of them, and then an array of other small theaters showing some large and some indie movies.
seriously, though, the refreshments are overpriced because that is the only way the movie houses can make money. can you imagine after all the hands involved in the movie, how much of a percentage is left for the movie houses? not much. I'd guess 20% at the high end ... and if you don't have capital to keep up with the newer theaters and their technology, good luck - you won't have a chance at any getting any of the new high grossing movies, because the production companies don't want to show them at your theater. it's kind of a catch 22.
the trick would be to get the movie industry interested in these old buildings - but its going to be really hard. the single theater house is virtually dead in most cities. even a five-plex is a tough sell to the movie chains.
even if you could sell the single theater house concept, how it the hell are you going to fit your stadium seating in the old mezzanine?
well you could go to the music box this weekend and watch the classic genius of preston sturges. they are showing the great film "miracle at morgan's creek"!!!
or you could go to the davis in lincoln square.
or the gene siskel theatre
or...
movie theaters are generally gross. first of all they, they typically are these nasty retro 1990s ugly designs on the interior. even in new york and LA (i.e. the alleged bastions of american coolness) it's like that. also, the seats are gross (they've been used so many times) and you have to deal with people sitting in close proximity who might smell bad or make noises or get in the way of your view. the internet (and all the home entertainment contraptions of the same era) have made human being more private, as in, it's taken away their need for proximity to a physically public place (because you can be connected to virtual public sphere from anywhere in the world or from your own bedroom), so they're more likely to want to do things in the comfort of their own homes without having to deal with real life strangers. i mean, look at the boom internet dating has been. hot, sweaty, dancefloors where you meet lovely strangers are gradually becoming a thing of the past. we are gradually going to become very uncomfortable in crowded places because it's simply a condition that we are no longer used to. oh, also, i think people are less interested in movies lately because of the proliferation of many other types of entertainment. and maybe we work more than we used to. oh, also, i think you meant "there."
getting stranded with a late plane yesterday in birmingham al, we looked for a movie theatres for a while. three theaters on the rental car's gps turned out to be closed, but we did finally find a 'rave' mega-plex after driving around for an hour or so.
it was impressive, i have to say. stadium seating and a full digital display (incredibly crisp).
the crispness was a little bit unnecessary though, since the movie we saw was largely filmed with a handheld and was moving so fast and blurry that resolution was beside the point.
--
here in louisville i've heard about the movie theater chains' power in either allowing or disallowing the smaller chains and independent theaters' ability to get shows when they're hot. the two or three big nationals can really put a stranglehold on a local market, so your littler theaters become 'second run' theaters by default. a smaller chain tried to make some noise in the local media about this a couple of years ago, but it didn't take.
point taken Vado - yes there are still a good number of art house theaters here. Im trying to ask why the neighborhood theater is going away. My hoetown theter, the York theater, was a single giant screen the was packed every weekend and played 2 or 3 films a week in rotation. Then it was carved up into 5 little screens. Not as much fun. Maybe the IMAX is the new big screen. But even those dont have that grand architectural experiance.
my local theater as a kid. Upstairs they had a movie theater museum that had pictures, blueprints and posters from all the old theaters in the western burbs
Well, I think cinemas are still, despite DVDs etc. doing good business.
I can't speak for the US but only the small Scandinavian country I'm from.
I worked in an art house cinema for years, that was always and is still struggling to keep it's head above water - the owners rarely make a penny worth their effort and do it out of sheer passion and a love for film. As do their competitors in some way I guess.
What the competitors don't do though is to actually import and distribute independent films, something which the art house market has had to rely on in order to just fill screens as distribution becomes concentrated amongst a few major players who feel it more attractive to place their product in technically up-to-date theaters. What happened in my home town was that we used to have 4 cinemas split between 2 owners and a the art house "commie" theater (showing 1/3 old films - like Blade Runner, 7 Samurais etc. and hence giving a small kid like me the opportunity to experience these marvels first on the big screen...+ 1/3 new films - mostly continental stuff + 1/3 self disted titles)
The art house relied on that one or two quality titles that come every year, even happy to take on second-hand titles from the bigger cinemas as they have to release screens for newer titles. However, as competition increased, the 2 other owners combined their efforts, closed 2 of their 4 cinemas and created a state-of-the art multiplex. They used this to run all the big titles and then placed the narrower titles in the other cinema, thereby depriving the art house of any good chance of getting these bread-and-butter titles to show.
Basically, it's about money and the art house, smaller theaters need subsidies and/or owners willing to forego a proper life wage in order to survive. Most don't...The studio execs (and I have asked some) would argue that the multiplex is the best solution for presenting their product and does not exclude "smaller, independent" cinema from access...I don't know.
An anecdote: I remember when Blade Runner was first re-released in the Director Cut format. The art house had been showing this film as a cult title on/off since it's release (say 10 years)...One would have liked to think that Warner in that location would then have been generous enough to offer it to the art house cinema (after all they had been giving the distributor income for all those years) but nay - this title went straight to the big fancy multiplex. It doesn't help to be naive or sentimental...It's just about the money, it really is.
Chicago's just weird. I live in Bridgeport. 70 or 80 years ago, there were no less than 4 major theatres in the neighborhood. They've all been demolished except for a derelict one at 36th & Halsted that's quite beautiful so the alderman has been trying to save it for decades. So, we have to go all the way to the north side of downtown for a movie - which is dumb.
By the logic of the internet/DVD revolution, the number of theaters should continue to decrease, but they're actually popping up everywhere in Chicago now. Kerasotes is building one in the South loop with like 17 screens, there's gonna be one in Block 37 when it's done. So, in general, the DVD revolution may be the cause for the rise and fall of the megaplex but in Chicago, we just didn't have many screens, and with the homogenizing/yuppifying of the city, we're getting more (ie. outside companies are realizing people with money do actually live in the city, its not necessarily true that the composition of people in the city is actually changing.) Some of the lack of screens could certainly be due to the easy availability and often cheapness of live entertainment in the city.
This is the inside shot of our local 1931 Warner Theatre, which seats 1,772 people. It has evolved over the years from a movie Theatre to
a full blown production Theatre. They have recently added a new box
theatre which is to be used for small community theaters
One reason I don't go as much is because most movies just suck. Occasionally there is a movie I'll want to see in the theater (300 was the last one, I think), but it is rare.
The pic above looks pretty cool. I'd pay more for a quality experience., maybe some decent popcorn and snacks.
Things that are killing them that I hate:
1. Noise - the idiots that talk during a flick. Theaters need to kick those idiots out.
2. Ads - previews can be entertaining if you haven't seen them, but typical television ads are just not acceptible
I didnt know someone was building a south loop theater. I heard Block 37 was getting one but wasnt confirmed. For years Chicago has banned theaters near downtown - they feared it would turn into times square in the 70's full of porno theaters.
a prof i was TA for had our students do a theater. it was going to be a 3 screen theater in downtown houston. when we went to other theaters for tours of their stuff...they laughed at us and said in order to make money you must have at least 6-9 theaters. he suggested that all of their profits come from the concessions while most of the ticket money goes to the producers.
on the other hand the theater "in the city" is usually missing the bells and whistles required by a 6-10 purchase...stadium seating, state of the art pic and soundn and don't forget the cup holder for my gallon of coke! we won't mention the large tunnels with a meager 1:12 slope.
so these two issues (multiplex & good views) make the existing theaters purely notalgic! the parking needs alone, but also the need to update theaters have killed the golden age of the theater. i can't say that DVDs etc. have killed the industry the way itunes have for the CD industry, it is more in the preceived experience.
I'm with evilplatypus. the reason we don't have interesting movie theaters is because we don't support them, we go to the uber-corporate megaplexes that "wal-mart" the independant theaters to death, and then jack the price up again.
just to be a jerk about it - Boston has cool theaters, the alleged bastion of american public school drama and pilgriminess. No parking needed.
I don't know why NYC & LA don't but I bet other college-y cities do too. There's hope.
When in Philly, I always went to the downtown art theaters (there were about four of them). Whenever I went to the multiplex, like for LOTR, it sucked. The audience reminded me of everything I dislike about crowd behavior, to paraphrase Seinfeld, "Have you been to the DMV lately? It's a leper colony out there".
Here in Indy the one art theater (that I know of) is quite nice, but I never go...because in addition to $16 for tickets and $30 for food I'd have to drop $40 on a babysitter (after finding one available). And on an architect's salary....
I imagine once my child is old enough to not need a babysitter I'll be able to go to the theater again. And I'll still go to the art theaters. I think the Architect article linked to by knock is pretty on the money.
In Portland, the Mission Theater was the best: second run movies in a converted church (with a balcony), and a microbrew bar/burger grille instead of a snack bar. I miss that, a lot!
dont get me wrong, we have art houses, mabey too many, Im concerned about the easily accessible neighborhood theater. Maybe is cyclical and its about to boom again. But the last boom in the early 90's, which also coincided with a reccession, produced some real crap.
if the Ramova was open in Bridgeport when I was in school, you best believe I would have made great use of it. it's a shame. We used to go to a cheap theater in south loop that has since closed down. but anyway, as an update evil, I believe the Patio theater (from the link) has been reopened. also, the Portage theater is a really cool trip if you get to visit. by no means ornate, it's just a cool classic theater space. they've opened it up to musical acts recently to keep it alive.
we have a movie theater programmed in our current project. we'll be replacing an older theater (analog) with a new digital theater(14-16k sqft). since theaters do not make $ (like mdlr mentioned-- the movie theater only makes $ on concessions) the only reasons it is being built are:
-requested by the public
-it is surrounded by office and retail that will actually make money and therefore support it
it can also be looked at as an anchor for late night visitors to the destination that will help support surrounding retailers and restaurants
Mar 5, 08 5:08 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
why are their no movie theaters?
when I was growing up there were movie theaters of all screen sizes and capicity. There were a few mega plexes but also grand old theaters with 50' screens.
By the 90's they were mostly closed save a few in the burbs where they are the center of town and a few in the gold coast. Now the 2 in the gold coast are gone as well. There is literally 2 movie theaters in the downtown area of Chicago. Thats it. 4 years ago there were at least 5 by my count and mabye maore. Is this the trend in other cities? Whats going on here? Hollywood cries its losing money yet the simple ability to walk to the neighborhood theater has been taken away and the megaplex is retarded - i avoid cramped theaters with screaming teenagers and shit all over the floors.
I think its time to stop supporting corporate owned theaters who price out the independant theaters from getting the movies and force the industry to return to respectability and make going to the movies an adventure again. Start with the building, its the first impresion of the product theyre selling.
some abandoned theaters
The simple answer to your question would be affordable DVDs, home cinema systems and the tendency to see movies as an "experience" (better sound and picture) rather than an artform. Most likely, we see more movies now than ever before, but at home.
then they shouldnt have shrunk the "big screen" that was their hook - still cant fit a 60' screen in your house
better question is this; given the times as they are, why are there no movie theaters in airports? if i am going to be stuck in an airport for 10 hours because of weather, i'd prefer to spend my time in a theater rather than wondering if some senator is going to get a "wide stance" on me...
people are more stupid?
a-f hit the nail on the head. The rise of the VHS casette, and now the DVD, has spelled the demise of the movie theater. Prior to that you had to go see the movie in the theater since you never knew when you might get another shot a seeing it.
Today there's no incentive for the theater. I can wait 6 months and own the movie for less than a couple tickets in the theater costs. Not to mention the overpriced snacks, noisy teenagers, etc.
But why are the snacks and tickets overpriced? Many of these neighborhood theaters had fairly cheap prices - mine growing up was $1.50 vs. 6.00 at the cineplex. One day they stopped getting new releases. The theater wasnt allowed movies by the studio untill they were out on VHS. WTF? This was a 1000 seat theater that was packed every Fri and Sat. I suspect some sort of distribution monopoly but I cant find any articles or data so far this morning.
It just pisses me off the complete waste of our urban fabric and lifestyle. People complain about how monotonous and homogenized life is becoming but they dont do anything about it. Protesting and shit aint going to do it. You need to vote with your dollars. Support your local theaters and stores.
the incentive is the extra experience available via the architecture of the theatre...seeing lawrence of arabia on 70mm film projected on the massive screen of detroit's fox theatre was much more impressive than watching it on a television set. hell, just being in the fox theater is worth the price of admission.
i agree - there is just something about the size of the screen. i enjoy movies at home too - but theres still an experiance to the big screen that only size and sound can give you
you guys need to come to MPLS we have some great neighborhood theaters and if you wait a little bit for first runs or art films to get out of the chains it becomes quite affordable...
I think its the distribution thats so expensive. In my town there are a couple art houses that have recently gone under or are struggling to stay alive, and they have been citing the distribution costs as what's been forcing them out.
Neither one of them were purpose built movie houses though, one had screens so small that I always swore I'd never go back. The other was an opera house that had horrible acoustics.
I grew up in a smallish midwestern town with an awesome old Fox Theatre. The balcony was still open when I was a kid and I used to love sitting in the front row and leaning against the railing. In the summer they had kid's matinées all week long showing Benji movies and bizarre Pipi Longstocking movies. Our parents would drop us off and we'd run wild with our $2 for refreshments. I still feel badly for ushers babysitting a couple hundred kids hopped up on sugar for 2 hours.
netflix
netflix is horrible. I dont see how waiting for movies is an advancement. Also - movies at home, even at my friends house where he has a 10' projector - not the same as a giant screen with gut shaking accoustics.
no argument there
when i was in high school, i used to love going to the temple theatre in saginaw. this was before the recent renovation featured on the website and the place used to be pretty dilapidated. it was run by a small group of senior citizens who had some kind of movie club than ran the theatre and typically put on an old movie every other friday night. the theater was huge & could hold hundreds of guests but typically there was only like 30-50 people in the audience. showed some really old movies like the 1936 lloyd's of london
one of my favorite memories was wandering all the way to the top of the theater and then being surprised when the projectionist popped out of the door and offered to show us the inside. it was fascinating to see just how large the film rolls were, especially the 70mm versions.
I love nextflix - but I will admit, there are some movies out there where seeing them on the big screen is a must.
I'm assuming high rents are driving theaters out of the middle of big cities. The movie situation in san francisco right now is pretty good - there are only 2 mega-plexes, which often have the same movies showing at both of them, and then an array of other small theaters showing some large and some indie movies.
seriously, though, the refreshments are overpriced because that is the only way the movie houses can make money. can you imagine after all the hands involved in the movie, how much of a percentage is left for the movie houses? not much. I'd guess 20% at the high end ... and if you don't have capital to keep up with the newer theaters and their technology, good luck - you won't have a chance at any getting any of the new high grossing movies, because the production companies don't want to show them at your theater. it's kind of a catch 22.
the trick would be to get the movie industry interested in these old buildings - but its going to be really hard. the single theater house is virtually dead in most cities. even a five-plex is a tough sell to the movie chains.
even if you could sell the single theater house concept, how it the hell are you going to fit your stadium seating in the old mezzanine?
but can you yuppify the movie experience?
http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1006&articleID=652495
this is one of my favorites of the many old theaters in the east bay:
and here's the marquee today:
well you could go to the music box this weekend and watch the classic genius of preston sturges. they are showing the great film "miracle at morgan's creek"!!!
or you could go to the davis in lincoln square.
or the gene siskel theatre
or...
if you feel nostalgic and are in Detroit there's also the Redford Theater...
pics from the wayback machine...
and a few current....
they still play the organ before the show & at intermissions...
movie theaters are generally gross. first of all they, they typically are these nasty retro 1990s ugly designs on the interior. even in new york and LA (i.e. the alleged bastions of american coolness) it's like that. also, the seats are gross (they've been used so many times) and you have to deal with people sitting in close proximity who might smell bad or make noises or get in the way of your view. the internet (and all the home entertainment contraptions of the same era) have made human being more private, as in, it's taken away their need for proximity to a physically public place (because you can be connected to virtual public sphere from anywhere in the world or from your own bedroom), so they're more likely to want to do things in the comfort of their own homes without having to deal with real life strangers. i mean, look at the boom internet dating has been. hot, sweaty, dancefloors where you meet lovely strangers are gradually becoming a thing of the past. we are gradually going to become very uncomfortable in crowded places because it's simply a condition that we are no longer used to. oh, also, i think people are less interested in movies lately because of the proliferation of many other types of entertainment. and maybe we work more than we used to. oh, also, i think you meant "there."
getting stranded with a late plane yesterday in birmingham al, we looked for a movie theatres for a while. three theaters on the rental car's gps turned out to be closed, but we did finally find a 'rave' mega-plex after driving around for an hour or so.
it was impressive, i have to say. stadium seating and a full digital display (incredibly crisp).
the crispness was a little bit unnecessary though, since the movie we saw was largely filmed with a handheld and was moving so fast and blurry that resolution was beside the point.
--
here in louisville i've heard about the movie theater chains' power in either allowing or disallowing the smaller chains and independent theaters' ability to get shows when they're hot. the two or three big nationals can really put a stranglehold on a local market, so your littler theaters become 'second run' theaters by default. a smaller chain tried to make some noise in the local media about this a couple of years ago, but it didn't take.
point taken Vado - yes there are still a good number of art house theaters here. Im trying to ask why the neighborhood theater is going away. My hoetown theter, the York theater, was a single giant screen the was packed every weekend and played 2 or 3 films a week in rotation. Then it was carved up into 5 little screens. Not as much fun. Maybe the IMAX is the new big screen. But even those dont have that grand architectural experiance.
my local theater as a kid. Upstairs they had a movie theater museum that had pictures, blueprints and posters from all the old theaters in the western burbs
Well, I think cinemas are still, despite DVDs etc. doing good business.
I can't speak for the US but only the small Scandinavian country I'm from.
I worked in an art house cinema for years, that was always and is still struggling to keep it's head above water - the owners rarely make a penny worth their effort and do it out of sheer passion and a love for film. As do their competitors in some way I guess.
What the competitors don't do though is to actually import and distribute independent films, something which the art house market has had to rely on in order to just fill screens as distribution becomes concentrated amongst a few major players who feel it more attractive to place their product in technically up-to-date theaters. What happened in my home town was that we used to have 4 cinemas split between 2 owners and a the art house "commie" theater (showing 1/3 old films - like Blade Runner, 7 Samurais etc. and hence giving a small kid like me the opportunity to experience these marvels first on the big screen...+ 1/3 new films - mostly continental stuff + 1/3 self disted titles)
The art house relied on that one or two quality titles that come every year, even happy to take on second-hand titles from the bigger cinemas as they have to release screens for newer titles. However, as competition increased, the 2 other owners combined their efforts, closed 2 of their 4 cinemas and created a state-of-the art multiplex. They used this to run all the big titles and then placed the narrower titles in the other cinema, thereby depriving the art house of any good chance of getting these bread-and-butter titles to show.
Basically, it's about money and the art house, smaller theaters need subsidies and/or owners willing to forego a proper life wage in order to survive. Most don't...The studio execs (and I have asked some) would argue that the multiplex is the best solution for presenting their product and does not exclude "smaller, independent" cinema from access...I don't know.
An anecdote: I remember when Blade Runner was first re-released in the Director Cut format. The art house had been showing this film as a cult title on/off since it's release (say 10 years)...One would have liked to think that Warner in that location would then have been generous enough to offer it to the art house cinema (after all they had been giving the distributor income for all those years) but nay - this title went straight to the big fancy multiplex. It doesn't help to be naive or sentimental...It's just about the money, it really is.
Chicago's just weird. I live in Bridgeport. 70 or 80 years ago, there were no less than 4 major theatres in the neighborhood. They've all been demolished except for a derelict one at 36th & Halsted that's quite beautiful so the alderman has been trying to save it for decades. So, we have to go all the way to the north side of downtown for a movie - which is dumb.
By the logic of the internet/DVD revolution, the number of theaters should continue to decrease, but they're actually popping up everywhere in Chicago now. Kerasotes is building one in the South loop with like 17 screens, there's gonna be one in Block 37 when it's done. So, in general, the DVD revolution may be the cause for the rise and fall of the megaplex but in Chicago, we just didn't have many screens, and with the homogenizing/yuppifying of the city, we're getting more (ie. outside companies are realizing people with money do actually live in the city, its not necessarily true that the composition of people in the city is actually changing.) Some of the lack of screens could certainly be due to the easy availability and often cheapness of live entertainment in the city.
I wasn't expecting mdler's last line on his thread.
Awesome. I briefly choked on the tea I was drinking while reading and simulatenously laughing.
mdler we must frequent different kinds of theatres.
This is the inside shot of our local 1931 Warner Theatre, which seats 1,772 people. It has evolved over the years from a movie Theatre to
a full blown production Theatre. They have recently added a new box
theatre which is to be used for small community theaters
One reason I don't go as much is because most movies just suck. Occasionally there is a movie I'll want to see in the theater (300 was the last one, I think), but it is rare.
The pic above looks pretty cool. I'd pay more for a quality experience., maybe some decent popcorn and snacks.
Things that are killing them that I hate:
1. Noise - the idiots that talk during a flick. Theaters need to kick those idiots out.
2. Ads - previews can be entertaining if you haven't seen them, but typical television ads are just not acceptible
- gotta learn to preview
Oh ya they do show movies there from time to time. So it is set up
with a big screen.
snook thats awesome.
I didnt know someone was building a south loop theater. I heard Block 37 was getting one but wasnt confirmed. For years Chicago has banned theaters near downtown - they feared it would turn into times square in the 70's full of porno theaters.
a prof i was TA for had our students do a theater. it was going to be a 3 screen theater in downtown houston. when we went to other theaters for tours of their stuff...they laughed at us and said in order to make money you must have at least 6-9 theaters. he suggested that all of their profits come from the concessions while most of the ticket money goes to the producers.
on the other hand the theater "in the city" is usually missing the bells and whistles required by a 6-10 purchase...stadium seating, state of the art pic and soundn and don't forget the cup holder for my gallon of coke! we won't mention the large tunnels with a meager 1:12 slope.
so these two issues (multiplex & good views) make the existing theaters purely notalgic! the parking needs alone, but also the need to update theaters have killed the golden age of the theater. i can't say that DVDs etc. have killed the industry the way itunes have for the CD industry, it is more in the preceived experience.
I'm with evilplatypus. the reason we don't have interesting movie theaters is because we don't support them, we go to the uber-corporate megaplexes that "wal-mart" the independant theaters to death, and then jack the price up again.
just to be a jerk about it - Boston has cool theaters, the alleged bastion of american public school drama and pilgriminess. No parking needed.
I don't know why NYC & LA don't but I bet other college-y cities do too. There's hope.
When in Philly, I always went to the downtown art theaters (there were about four of them). Whenever I went to the multiplex, like for LOTR, it sucked. The audience reminded me of everything I dislike about crowd behavior, to paraphrase Seinfeld, "Have you been to the DMV lately? It's a leper colony out there".
Here in Indy the one art theater (that I know of) is quite nice, but I never go...because in addition to $16 for tickets and $30 for food I'd have to drop $40 on a babysitter (after finding one available). And on an architect's salary....
I imagine once my child is old enough to not need a babysitter I'll be able to go to the theater again. And I'll still go to the art theaters. I think the Architect article linked to by knock is pretty on the money.
In Portland, the Mission Theater was the best: second run movies in a converted church (with a balcony), and a microbrew bar/burger grille instead of a snack bar. I miss that, a lot!
dont get me wrong, we have art houses, mabey too many, Im concerned about the easily accessible neighborhood theater. Maybe is cyclical and its about to boom again. But the last boom in the early 90's, which also coincided with a reccession, produced some real crap.
if the Ramova was open in Bridgeport when I was in school, you best believe I would have made great use of it. it's a shame. We used to go to a cheap theater in south loop that has since closed down. but anyway, as an update evil, I believe the Patio theater (from the link) has been reopened. also, the Portage theater is a really cool trip if you get to visit. by no means ornate, it's just a cool classic theater space. they've opened it up to musical acts recently to keep it alive.
we have a movie theater programmed in our current project. we'll be replacing an older theater (analog) with a new digital theater(14-16k sqft). since theaters do not make $ (like mdlr mentioned-- the movie theater only makes $ on concessions) the only reasons it is being built are:
-requested by the public
-it is surrounded by office and retail that will actually make money and therefore support it
it can also be looked at as an anchor for late night visitors to the destination that will help support surrounding retailers and restaurants
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.