| Message/Author |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 03:09 am
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any IMAX theater
chain which are bankrupt? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 01:57 pm
|
|
|
Cinemark is on the verge....Regal Cinemas in a news article yesterday said that they will default on some loans. Sony/Lowe's ain't doing to well either.
Take your pick... :( |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, September 10, 2000 - 02:15 pm
|
|
|
The sad thing is that they try to run IMAX theatres like a regular 35mm theatre. Guess they don't know that to make money, ya gotta spend a little...IN THE RIGHT PLACES. Ads and showtimes that are incorrect are inexcusable. When you run your theatre with virtually no employees, how do you expect customer service to be a reality? I'm the projectionist, and sometimes I have to go into the auditorium to clean it up because there are no employees. What has happened is that those in charge in the home offices do not have the faintest idea of running an IMAX theatre. Most have never worked in any type of movie theatre. To keep their personal bonuses high, they simply cut payroll to nothing. Thus, they look good to their superiors. (who also don't know what is going on). Hey boss! Look how much money I saved! Thing is, you didn't make any money. Cutting the budget is all they can think of.
On a daily basis, I see more waste of money and effort than should be allowed. I personally could out-manage 95% of them. Yes, I have offered my services in that area. "But no" they say... "we have people we have trained specifically to run an IMAX theatre"...Who trained them? Someone who doesn't know film cement from drywall cement. Arrgh! I can't wait until all the middle management is out the door, so we can start making a profit. |
|
|
| Judith Rubin posted on Monday, September 11, 2000 - 05:22 pm
|
|
|
| Perhaps Imax will purchase the bankrupt theaters, as it did the Cinema Plus theaters in Australia. |
|
|
| Judith Rubin posted on Monday, September 11, 2000 - 05:33 pm
|
|
|
Addendum: It's my understanding that the problem isn't specifically with the various chains' large format theaters, but rather that most of the major chains in general have over-built in the past few years, and are now "over-screened."
And, when virtually every chain switched to stadium seating in virtually all new theaters, older theaters without stadium seating (and, often, in less desirable locations and with many fewer total screens per complex) lost business.
So, while large format theaters will suffer along with the rest, the situation doesn't necessarily indicate that large format can't succeed in a commercial setting. |
|
|
|
|
I believe it is because of all of the new mulit-plexes. Our IMAX theatre is right across from an older three screen Famous Players, downtown Wininpeg in a mall. Famous opened a new 14 screen Silver city that is avout a fifteen minuite drive from the downtown mall. Once the Silver city was opened the mall theatres attendance dropped by something like 62%!
I think it is that people are paying a high price already, they want to go to the "big shiny new one" and not the same old run down theatre.
I think the key is that if your facility is run down , no matter what it is, you have to keep with the times and keep it new. |
|
|
|
|
| The problem with the conventional cinema chains is that they've been going through a Starbucks/Blockbuster phase, where they must have one in every community. The thing that's causing them to go bankrupt is that the new cineplexes they are building usually have 15-30 screens per complex, stadium seating, and digital sound in each auditorium. Because of the large number of screens now available in a community, they just are not able to make a return on their huge investments. |
|
|
|
|
| To compound that thee are insufficient film to occupy these screens profitably |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 09:29 am
|
|
|
Remember the old days? Three screens per theater? If you wanted to see a specific movie, you had to drive to a specific theater?
Now, there are 20-screen multiplexes within miles. So, if there are 50 people who want to see a film, all it does is send 25 to one and 25 to another. When those 25 get to the theater, the film is playing in four theaters 'cause the movies that are out suck so the theater shows the "a" film in four houses. Now those 25 people can choose between four houses which all show the film at the same time. So you have about 6 people per house--assuming they don't decide to go at different showtimes during the day. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 11:10 pm
|
|
|
An now this from bloomberg.com
New York, Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The following
are comments from Imax Corp. Co-Chief
Executive Richard Gelfond
``I think we're getting unfairly tarred. The issues facing conventional cinema is that they have too many screens and too much debt. Imax has an entirely different business model, we're under-screened everywhere in the world and we're not over-levered. We also make very little money off the customer coming in for the movie. The bulk of our revenue comes from leasing our systems and our brand name.'' |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 01:09 am
|
|
|
| oh, and dont forget Imax's Owned and Operated theatres where they are making money off the nice little price of concessions. Looks like someone is trying to imitate conventional cinema, hey Mr Gelfond? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 08:51 pm
|
|
|
"...We also make very little money off the customer coming in for the movie. The bulk of our revenue comes from leasing our systems and our brand name."
Sorry to be direspectful Mr. Gelfond, but let me point out an economic fact. Your system leases & the Imax Brand Name come at a high price to your lessors, who then adjust their ticket prices accordingly. So, guess who's still paying? I must admit, it's a terrific strategy: Imax always get paid first, THEN everyone else. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 01:31 pm
|
|
|
Edwards Theatres to Seek Court Approval to Break Imax Leases
By MARC BALLON, LESLIE EARNEST, Times Staff Writers
Edwards Theatres Circuit Inc., which has shed movie houses that have been a drain on the Newport Beach chain, is moving to break contracts that could lead to closing six Imax theaters, including three in Southern California.
Edwards, which is trying to reorganize its debts under Bankruptcy Court protection, and Imax Corp. said they have failed to negotiate a settlement on Imax's claims for $29 million owed in licensing fees under the contracts.
Both sides say they will seek Bankruptcy Court approval to scrap the lease contracts.
Court approval, however, doesn't mean that the theaters will be closed. Edwards won court approval last August to get out of the lease at the Lido theater in Newport Beach, but is still operating it.
The large-screen Imax theaters that could be closed are at Irvine Spectrum center in Irvine, Ontario Mills shopping center in Ontario, Valencia, Fresno, Houston and Boise, Idaho.
Under its plan, which is the subject of a court hearing Friday, Edwards would raise $56 million by selling a 51% stake to an investor group led by Denver financier Philip Anschutz.
The plan calls for paying $213.5 million, the total amount owed, to a consortium of lenders headed by Bank of America and repaying other creditors 90% to 100% of their claims, provided those claims don't exceed $113 million.
But Edwards, the state's largest movie house operator, has hit bumps as it seeks creditor and court approval of its reorganization plan.
Edwards contends that the debt claimed by Imax isn't legitimate and that the Imax theaters are not drawing enough customers.
Edwards' lawyer, Eric Goldberg, said if the court allows the company to break the contracts, Edwards will close the Imax theaters and probably convert them to conventional movie houses.
Imax, however, contends that some of the theaters are successful. The Spectrum Imax was once one of its highest performers, but the numbers have now "tailed off somewhat," said Richard L. Gelfond, Imax co-chairman and co-chief executive. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting since the Edwards in OntarioMills forced a insitution 15/70 3d to close and now after they drove them out they are walking away.
Says a lot about the "not staying for the long haul" by the comercial largeformat theatres compared to the insitutional ones |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 02:05 pm
|
|
|
| While I know nothing about this situation, I'd guess that the first sentence in the above entry is probably a stretch. Most institutionals have a good customer base and decent school group attendance. While the presence of a nearby IMAX theater probably didn't help much, I'm sure there were other failures internal to the institution that helped cause that theater's downfall. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 02:27 pm
|
|
|
The Ontario Mills Ultra Screen that closed, due to its close proximity to the Edwards Imax theater just across the parking lot, was not an institutional theater. Both theaters were commercial 3-D 1570 venues.
See some earlier threads for detailed information on that particular situation.
How can anyone owe $29 million for 6 projection systems? What theater in their right mind would LEASE hardware at that price, especially when there's no software for it? I guess the Imax sales pitch was pretty damn good! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 02:44 pm
|
|
|
If a theater has 300,000 admissions a year (which these Edwards theaters do not) and has an average ticket price of $8.00, that comes to $2,400,000 per year in box office, times 6 theaters = $14,400,000. Multiply this times 7% and you get $1,008,000 as a "possible" annual royalty per year for the 6 theaters. When you divide this into $29,000,000, you get the equivalent of 28 theaters' royalties, or, 6 theaters' royalties for almost 5 years each.
So, I suppose owing $29,000,000 is possible, but could anyone, even the ____ at Imax make this kind if claim?
I realize there are equipment maintenance fees and film royalties, but keep in mind that the Edwards Imax theaters probably average closer to 150,000 admissions per year. That would put this claim at almost 10 years for each theater.
So, for what could they possibly owe $29,000,000?
yours truly,
"boy with a calculator" |
|
|
|
|
I believe if you look back the UltraScreen was the San Bernadino County Museum venture.
The shortage of product and 2 theatres so close starved it out
I believe there is more on this theatre and its closeing posted elsewhere on the site |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 07:49 pm
|
|
|
| Re: the $29 mil - you're forgetting that IMAX's standard projection lease terms include 10 years or more MINIMUM royalties, a "bankable" commitment so to speak, of more than $100K per theater per year. You can bet IMAX would claim damages of all these contractual minimums which would be frustrated if the theaters are closed before the end of each lease term. A deal is a deal, as they say. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:38 pm
|
|
|
Time to set the record straight about the Ontario Mills situation.
1. The UltraScreen Theatre, with an Iwerks 15/70 2D/3D* system, was owned 100% by the County of San Bernardino. (The land was owned by the private mall developer, the Mills Corp). Although this theater had an educational mission with a tendency to program only documentary 2D LF films, and a marketing connection to the San Bernardino Museum many miles away, to the public it looked like a standalone commercial theater located in a shopping mall. The UltraScreen was about 150 yds from the Edwards megplex with an IMAX screen.
* although 3D "equipped", the UltraScreen was virtually shut out of the scarce supply of 3D film. After a while, this didn't matter at all because the cost of leasing 3D films and operating in 3D mode far outweighed the "benefit" of pathetic excuses for 3D entertainment such as "Mark Twain's America" and "Encounter".
2. The UltraScreen Theater closed simply because there was no way the "profit" would ever retire the debt on this project. The County just wanted to cut their losses, the responsible thing to do on behalf of the taxpayer. The County knew how dire the financial prospects were, soon after the Theater opened in 1997, but politics being what it is, it took a couple of years for the bureaucrats and elected officals to admit the "no-win" situation they were in. (The debt was equal to 100% of the $7.4 mil cost. Just like a 100% mortgage! Go figure.) The only way this theater could have ever had a chance to pay back interest and principal on this debt was if the theater had over over 400,000 attendance, year in year out, with a competitive IMAX a short 3-iron away! Not a chance. The UltraScreen was "D.O.A" when it opened.
3. The dirty little secret was that the Edwards Ontario IMAX was performing just as miserably. Lucky if they did over 150,000 attendance/year. I'll bet it dipped below 100,000, even after UltraScreen closed in late 1999. But corporate ego and lease commitments to Imax being what they are (never mind that Imax didn't want the world to know that some commercial theaters like this one were sucking wind), the sorry state of affairs at this Edwards location was kinda buried. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:55 pm
|
|
|
| ...and don't forget #4. the Ontario California market probably would never support a commercial LF theater. Not even one theater. This local/resident market is quite small; way, way too downscale, and has no tourism. Ontario is the exact opposite of the kind of market that everyone knows is necessary to support a successful LF theater. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 10:23 pm
|
|
|
To the last poster who said, "pathetic excuses for 3D entertainment such as "Mark Twain's America" and "Encounter", I say while you are entitled to your arrogant opinions, you are certainly in the minority about "Encounter". As an exhibitor I can say that this film did really well for our theater and for many in the world, and I think it has like 100 licenses or something, so, again, your can have your opinion, but it is not an informed one.
Sorry for getting off topic. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 08:59 am
|
|
|
| to Anon who defends "Encounter" - fair point. True, that film did ok, maybe even "great" in some/many theaters. And "Twain" for that matter was a well made film. My point, admittedly lost by unfairly picking on a couple of titles, was the general one that these and other 3D films were not the type or quality that would sustain or grow the LF 3D business, or do well enough, above what 2D films can do at the box office, to justify all the added expense. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 09:09 am
|
|
|
On the $29 million Edwards owes Imax.. you guys are still missing some of the bounty:
As I recall, Edwards signed for 13 IMAX systems. Seems to me that Imax would want ot be kept whole on ALL 13, not just the 6 that got open. Also, in addition to the annual royalty minimums, don't forget that each contract would have an annual maintenance fee of $100 thou' or more per screen per year, that Imax would add to the claim. And let's also assume that Edwards had fallen a little behind in paying PAST film licenses, royalties, maintenance, to Imax, so add that to the bill.
And this is only one circuit. The other shoes haven't droppped yet with some of the other chains. Oh to be an attorney for Imax - now THAT's where the money is! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 08:13 pm
|
|
|
The situation in Australia is even worse. Our weak dollar is only worth 50c US at the moment, and we have to pay the same lease, service and royalties as you guys.
Our theatre chain when it first started was Cinema Plus. We sprouted 4 theatres in Australia, 1 in Bangkok and 1 in New Zealand from October '96 to the middle of last year when C+ failed.
There was already an IMAX dome in Perth and Townsville, both doing poorly, and the IMAX theatre at Dreamword which was doing OK because it's inside a theme park.
Australia is the size of the US, but we only have 23 million people here. So how anyone thought building all these theatres would rake in millions of dollars is beyond me.
When C+ failed, IMAX stepped in and created IMAX Australia so the theatres could keep the doors open. IMAX wiped the slate clean, so the millions we owed them went away since we were now part of them, but they then just left us to our own devices financially, basically anyway.
We had to make do with the box office takings to rebuild the company from scratch. Once suppliers, staff, distributors and day to day running costs were taken out of the box office, there was nothing left for marketing. So how did they expect us to get anyone through the doors? You can have the best films in the world, but nobody's going to come and see it if they don't know about it!
IMAX has since pulled back out of the theatres here, and we're left with another company running the show.
Are there any theatres, or theatre chains out there actually making money? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2001 - 10:46 am
|
|
|
Imax reportedly planning a $29 million writeoff for losses
By CARL DIORIO
Edwards Theaters has booted giant-screen exhib Imax from six of its theaters as part of the Newport Beach-based circuit's ongoing bankruptcy reorg.
A bankruptcy judge Monday approved a motion to end contracts with Imax at four California sites -- Irvine, Valencia, Ontario and Fresno -- and one each in Boise and Houston. Edwards will halt Imax operations at the sites effective Aug. 1, with Imax reportedly planning a $29 million writeoff for losses related to the closure.
Family-operated Edwards, set for 51% takeover by a group including financier Philip Anschutz and buyout firm Oaktree Capital, expects to emerge from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the fall. As part of those proceedings, exhib is seeking court permission to end leases at various money-losing properties.
An Edwards spokeswoman said the Imax theaters will be closed because "they weren't profitable." She said the sites will be converted either to commercial screens or another giant-screen format.
Other movie theaters shuttered by Edwards to date include several properties in Irvine, Laguna Beach, the Inland Empire and northern San Diego County. Circuit currently operates 58 theaters with 686 screens including the Imax properties. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 10:34 pm
|
|
|
Judge Allows Newport Beach, Calif., Theater Company to Cancel Agreements
July 9, 2001 8:22am
Jul. 9--A judge's ruling will formally dissolve a marriage between two financially reeling companies next month at 14 existing or proposed theaters, including one near Ontario Mills.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lynne Riddle in Santa Ana on June 2 granted a motion by Newport Beach-based Edwards Theatres Circuit Inc. to cancel its development agreements and equipment leases with Canada-based Imax Corp. The motion goes into effect Aug. 1.
Imax was not profitable for us, and (with Edwards in) Chapter 11, you have to look to maximize creditors' recovery, said Anita Marie Hill of Los Angeles -based Sitrick and Co., a crisis management public relations firm hired by Edwards.
An Imax spokesman who did not want to be named said the contracts obligated Edwards to develop the mammoth theaters and lease Imax's large-screen projection equipment. Six theaters have already been built and another eight were in the works.
Imax will now pursue a $29 million claim against Edwards for breaking the agreement.
Now that Edwards has the approval (to break the contract), Imax becomes a claimant, said the spokesman.
Once the motion goes into effect, the Ontario Imax may continue to show large-format films, but it may also be used to screen popular, regular format movies, said Hill, whose company's local clients have included Corona- based Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. after some Food and Drug Administration inspections and the city of Riverside following the Tyisha Miller shooting.
Imax has suffered its own financial turmoil, reporting a $92 million loss for 2000 despite a $15.6 million increase in revenue from 1999. Nevertheless, Imax plans to continue creating films using large-format technology, according to the Imax spokesman.
Some theaters have been exploring alternatives for failing Imax screens.
Cathedral City's downtown association took over the Desert Imax Theater in January, and Redevelopment Agency Director Susan Moeller is considering folding it into the new Mary Pickford Theater complex.
I think you have to look at expanding the venue, (possibly) bringing in a 35-millimeter projector (for) showing second-run features, she said.
A combination of overexpansion and competition from rival multiplexes forced Edwards Theatres -- which racked up debt of nearly $36 million to film companies like DreamWorks SKG, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros. Distributing, Universal Studios and Miramax -- to file for bankruptcy in August.
The chain immediately closed a pair of Inland Empire theaters in Rancho Cucamonga and Temecula, and later dimmed additional theaters in Temecula, Rancho Cucamonga, Moreno Valley, Upland and Corona.
Edwards can turn around its fortunes despite the setbacks, according to Ontario Mills General Manager Jim Mance.
Edwards is a great neighbor. If they got out of that (Imax) contract, I am sure they are clever enough to come up with something else, Mance said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
