We're About to Lose 1,000 Small Theaters That Can't Convert to Digital. Does It Matter?

89 Comments

• | Reply

• Maynard Meyer | May 24, 2012 10:33 PMReply

  In community of 1,500 people we are on a mission to raise $100,000 which will hopefully be enough to convert the Grand Theatre in Madison, Minnesota to digital projection. We are already at $32,000 and we are determined to get this done. The twin-screen theatre is owned by the city and is leased to my partner and me who basically run it as a public service. Some major fundraising events have been planned and we are getting many $1,000 contributions from groups and individuals. The Grand is an integral part of main street and we refuse to die!

• William Martin | May 19, 2012 3:24 AMReply

  hello Mike, My career of 42 years started out in a small Theatre in Tucumcari, New Mexico. Amazingly enough, the single screen Odeon is still in operation today. Your article, well written, failed to mention: Texas Instruments has completed development on, and will release soon, a "cheaper" version of the 'chip' used in DCI Compliant Video Projectors. Christie will probably be the first to utilize this chip; designed to meet MINIMUM DCI standards for use in small venues with a screen size of 20 to 30 feet (wide). I will guess the Projector cost will be in the $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 range; or about the same as a film projector and platter system. Also, Christie, Sony, Barco, NEC, have filed a joint petition with the FTC for a "waiver" that will allow them to replace Xenon Bulbs in their DCI Projectors with a very high powered laser as the light source. These 'laser bulbs' will be cheaper, last longer, run cooler, use MUCH less electricity, and produce quality light right up to the end of their lifespan. Christie, for one, has a Finance Plan available that will help small independent Theatre Owners make the conversion. For 42 years I made my living as Projectionist working every venue from porno-houses to First-Run 70mm. I am sad to see film go away. So maybe these small town theatres will not go away after all. It ain't over till the fat lady sings ! All Best, Bill Martin

• Kim | May 11, 2012 8:07 PMReply

  I wouldn't want the theater in my home town to close just because it can not convert fast enough. I think it just isn't fair.

• Rob | May 6, 2012 2:20 PMReply

  Yes, I know its expensive to switch to digital but not impossible either. If communities claim they care about there local theaters then they should help support funding for this. Do the math. If just 3,000 people donated $10 that would come out to $30,000 to help pay for digital projection. Most of wont die with just a one time donation to help keep a theater alive. How can a community complain of "no where to go for movies" or say "its so sad that this good old theater shut down, had so many memories there" if they where never willing to step up and help out. YES.... it takes EVERYONE coming together!! Somtimes a community ONLY has themselves to blame.

• larry Z | April 18, 2012 6:43 PMReply

  Justin and Mickey, Just a FYI. HDCP has nothing to do with D cinema unless you running alternitive content(dvd, bluray, Satilite). There are thousands of D Cinema installs that are not HDCP compliant. D Cinema has its own copywrite and encoding as part of the DCI Compliance. If you buy used Series One projectors(currently everything is series 2) be very careful. It is very exspensive to upgrade these if they are not already.

• MarrMark Productions | April 18, 2012 1:07 AMReply

  I echo what all of you are saying, and have for years. Thanks for all of this can go to good ol' George Lucas who never liked film in the first place, and, as "Cinema Productions" guy has said, film has a lot of potential not even tapped yet. There are heights people haven't even thought of with film, unmatched by digital now or ever. Check out MaxiVision 48 please! It's incredible. Dean Goodhill has created this incredible film projection system that could knock the socks off the industry if anyone would sit up and take notice! Long live film!!

• Fantomex | April 25, 2012 2:04 PM

  Uh, the idea behind DCP was that it would take power away from Hollywood and big film companies generally, and would also allow anybody to be able to put whatever they wanted (short films, documentaries, commercials, music videos, home movies shot by a little girl with her Nintendo 3DS) without the expense of film processing, which is expensive, and can run into the hundreds of dollars-I should know, I'm taking pictures on film right now with my Minolta Maxxum 5000 AF SLR, and that costs a lot. Your friend's film system sounds like the same film systems that exist now, with all of the same problems as I've mentioned above that come with using film-why would anybody use it? Also, I don't know how to tell you this, but the reason film (still pictures) went away generally was because of the above-mentioned cost issues and because of time issues (which is why most magazines and newspapers only accept digital as the standard and not film.) Plus, one other thing most of the film lovers don't want to admit (but is true) is that the making of film and its processing is environmentally destructive (ask the local activists in Rochester, New York how they feel about Kodak dumping waste into the river-you won't be feeling the love for film then.) To say that nobody should be advancing or using this is just a ton of neo-Ludditeism, and smacks of ignorance and 'truthiness' more than any common sense about a technological advancement.

• Cinema Productions | April 16, 2012 7:37 PMReply

  My company will gladly develop and produce movies for these theaters that can't or won't convert to digital. Not only that but I am willing to start a second company to finance theatres that want to upgrade their analog film capabilities as far as analog projectors (cooling, lenses, light source, tribology, and steadiproj -- the complement to steadicam). I think that the potential of analog is largely unexplored and that analog technology can beat digital video by many orders of magnitude in terms of color, definition/resolution, and realism. The technology just needs someone to believe in it. There are producers like me who like the analog film media but pessimism and cynicism toward potential allies will not help. There are many directors who see the trend toward digital projection as a slippery slope to video. The biggest director of them all, James Cameron, said that he did not get into the film to make motion pictures for the small screen (TV) but for the big screen. The big studios want to cut out theaters (single screen, small auditoriums, etc.) altogether because their profit is in Blu-Ray and video on demand. I got into the business to make analog film motion pictures for the big screen and for theatres -- not to see my movies go straight to DVD and gather dust. I got nothing against digital video as long as it is used for television. George Lucas started this trend and stands to cash in. Well, why not start a counter-trend and cash in on it? The major part of the problem is that the film processing labs are closing down as still cameras are going digital. "Kodachrome" was a great song by Paul Simon. But who protested when Eastman Kodak and Polaroid got out of the film processing business? I talked to everyone I could and said that if enough people got together and pooled money together (plus venture capital and investment banks) then cinemaphiles and film aficionados could buy the labs and assure the future of the technology. If Hollywood itself can't get prints made to distribute to theaters, then why be surprised if they are talking about satellite downlinks to multiplexes to do digital projection? And Hollywood should not be surprised if the "new media" is easier to steal off the satellites and off wireless hotspots (the same way hackers steal internet service). If they thought they had a piracy, bootlegging and counterfeiting problem before, then wait till the theaters are all digital!!! And if they are transmitting flicks by satellite to theatres, then why should people inconvenience themselves to essentially watch television (that's what digital video is) in a run down theatre when they can watch on their own big flat screen at home? You could call it a conspiracy by the FCC in cahoots with the cable industry to force television set makers to go wide screen (like theatres) and high def (like theatres) but then they are like any industry looking for the newest gimmicks. And television has always imitated the movies (3D at home is the latest) but perhaps that train ride is ending. The old cathedrals of cinema from the 1940's are gone with buggy whips, luxury transcontinental passenger trains, and penny postcards. Broadcast TV is about to go. I suppose the people who read these words either are and aren't part of the changeover from single-screens to multiplexes. And now IMAX, IWERKS and other big screen formats are taking over the high end while art house chains are no longer buying up run down theatres. Mark Cuban bought Landmark Theatres some years ago. To some, the real question is not whether small theatres will survive (they can show indie and art films) but whether the mid-range theatres will survive. And empty buildings, as far as I am concerned, represent an opportunity. That's enough analysis. Unite and thrive. Or hang on the gallows separately. I am offering to help. Now let's see if anyone bothers to take me up on my offer. Cinema Productions Box 4436 Rock Hill, SC 29732 USA

• Peter Walukiewicz | May 19, 2012 3:36 PM

  I am glad to see that someone still wants to support 35mm film exhibition. So many of us, have already lost our jobs in the industry, because of 'Digital conversion'. I started out as an 'apprentice' projectionist, way back in 1980! I trained at Showcase Cinemas in Orange, CT. on a 70mm print of 'The Empire Strikes Back'. I will never forget it, for as long as I live. We had to 'change-over' the huge reels every 20 minutes. There were no platters in our theater back then. I loved the smell of the new print, fresh from the lab, as I opened the cans. I also worked at smaller 'Mom & Pop' second run theaters. They still used 'carbon arcs' in the lamp houses. I still had to 'change-over' the reels every twenty minutes. To this day, I can still remember exactly where the 'cue dots' were on most of the films that I have shown. (This drives my seventeen year old nuts!) How can they say "A Film by Ridley Scott", when they no longer use any 35mm film stock to shoot it? How can they say "The Tribeca or Sundance Film Festival", when motion picture film is no longer being projected? Hollywood has betrayed itself. Technology is great, yes. But, at the 'expense' of selling it's very soul, to simply 'turn a profit?' If I cannot see a 35mm or 70mm presentation at the movies, I will just wait until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray disc, or Digital download. Also, I feel that the National Association of Theater Owners, has betrayed us, by backing the few remaining non-digital theater owners into a corner! "Convert or Die?" Obviously , they have been bought out by Hollywood. Popcorn, anyone?

• Paul Rivalin | April 7, 2012 2:15 PMReply

  THE STUDIOS DON'T CARE! They never have, never will. The simple, albeit illogical, answer is that they would just rather all the indies went away. THE ACTORS, DIRECTORS, AND PRODUCERS DON'T CARE! Will Smith, James Cameron, Tom Cruise; these men, and others like them, have the REAL power to influence the situation and they stand by, blaming ignorance, and do nothing for the back bone of the industry which has made them. The digital revolution will change the power balance over the next 5 years. In true studio foresight they are as clueless as ever. No longer does the appetite for "names" prop up a film. No longer does a massive distribution cost 70 million in print costs. No longer does the movie going public give a dam what studio made the product. Through their collective avoidance of responsibility they have all eroded their brands beyond recognition - karma is a bitch. Look at book publishing! My guess, the studios who are, or begin too, support the exhibitors will reign insurmountable kings of movie land :) Don't expect those to be the current big players.

• Bruce Sanders | March 26, 2012 10:58 AMReply

  This is a very stupid policy on the part of the film companies and distributors, because it will eliminate independent theatres in areas of the country where people don't have "home theatres" and STILL DEPEND on their small town theatre to see movies. It's interesting to note that the government ruined Loew's Theatres in the 1950's consent decrees in an effort to "protect" independent theatres, yet, they haven't sounded a peep about the current film company policies, which threaten to eliminate all but the very strongest independents. Of course the WORST thing about small independent closing is that it affects the vitality of the entire area where it was located, including jobs.

• Fantomex | April 25, 2012 2:06 PM

  @BRUCE SANDERS: No, it won't-you're just being alarmist.

• Juan Pacheco | March 25, 2012 11:46 AMReply

  I have been several times at the Colonial theater in Maine: Beautiful little theater, like many others in the country. We have to sign, push or send letters to the Studios for helping these theaters stay, and HELP THEM to be converted to digital system. Studios could help them. They have a lot of money from their sales and also from the Piracy marjet participation, around the world. These theaters supported them for years, it's time to give them help to no see them to close. (Since I was a kid I hate to see theaters closing their doors or being converted into other plan)

• Jacob Felz | March 21, 2012 4:42 PMReply

  We all knew the day would come when film would become "obsolete." My only question is why is it that important to have digital over film? Is there that noticeable of a difference? In my personal opinion the difference isn't worth the risk of losing the few locally owned cinemas we have left around. If the industry is serious about switching over they should consider a "cash for clunkers" to try to alleviate the unnecessary costs being thrown at these small companies that are already struggling to keep up with the big theater tycoons. I grew up in a pretty rural area, and it's definitely not hard to find cinemas in the area, but it's rare to come across one still open. All I hope for is that this heavy burden doesn't crush the hopes of any more movie theaters. Just because 35mm film projectors seam outdated, doesn't mean we need to fill our garbage dumps with them. They've been around since the turn of the century, and have withstood the test of time. The locally owned theater I worked for had four of these marvelous machines. Each machine ran perfectly without any problems caused by the machines themselves. The oldest projector there has been in use since the early fifties, and is still doing the job it was designed to do today. To sum it up "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." To me the differences are not major between film and digital, they both play the same movies, and tell the same stories. Until the cinema owners decide to switch over to digital they shouldn't be forced to. It's a big step for these local businesses to switch over, and some may not be financially prepared. If somebody doesn't step in soon it might just be too late for some small towns.

• M | March 20, 2012 6:43 AMReply

  So, a little technical detail for those of you interested. The primary reason that Digital Cinema systems are so expensive is because the newly created DCI standard calls for a 2K (or now even 4K) resolution projector. This is the number of pixels projected in the horizontal direction is 2048 (or 4096) Earlier video standards (set by the broadcast industry) went up to resolutions of 1920 x 1080p. The entire transition to digital, scared studios into believing that using the existing 1920 pixel standard would enable "broadcast content" to make its way into theaters, diminishing the hold that studios have over exhibition. Thinks Superbowl in theaters. Ergo the 2K standard. The result of this unusual standard is that the DLP (Digital Light Projection) chip which was mass produced earlier (for 1920 projectors) had to be custom designed all over again for 2048 pixel projection (a mere 128 pixels more). Given that the overall requirement for 2K/4K projectors is so low (compared to volumes of typical semiconductor devices), the DLP semiconductor device cost gets amortized over far fewer volumes, causing the 2K chips to be exorbitantly priced. This correspondingly and directly raises the cost of the projector. Studios claim that 2048 pixel projection is a must to maintain quality - as against 1920 ! Anyways, this problem was anticipated and dealt with by a few innovative digital cinema companies in India. Those companies offer a complete digital cinema system with 1920 resolution and more that 5000 screens (out of something like a total of 7000) have been digitized now. Given that Indian movie studios did not mandate the 2K DCI standard there, the transition was smooth and swift - without imposition of obscene costs. No theaters have been left behind. Reason for writing this up is that if the folks that care about this can persuade Hollywood studios to expand the DCI standard to include 1920 resolution projectors, the entire problem would go away, given that the cost of conversion would then fall to something lower than $25,000 per screen. Just my two cents ...!

• Fantomex | April 25, 2012 2:08 PM

  Finally, somebody that has a sensible thing to say about this that isn't fear-mongering. But will people 'see the light', so to speak, and listen?

• Paul Rivalin | April 7, 2012 2:20 PM

  Only problem being that they would then screw the people who have spent the 100'000 to convert already and that shit storm would be huge!

• Mike Hurley | March 17, 2012 2:06 PMReply

  I wrote this piece and thanks to all who wrote back and have shared it and forwarded it or argued my points. I have learned from all of you and the debate continues to crystallize and focus my thinking. As part of what I do, run two small town movie theatres theatres, book theatres, run www.bigscreenbiz.com, and own and run a number of other small companies as well as serve on a small town city council, past 3 term mayor, etc. etc. I spend far too much time thinking about the other guy, and generally the little guy. As Mitt Romney says: only in reverse. Because I do not run theatres in major or even moderate population based areas I have more developed ideas in the world of smaller or niche markets than what makes an AMC tick on Broadway and 48th in NYC. I am a small town guy who lived in NYC, grew up in suburban New Jersey, and I have concluded that the extermination of small town theatres is a coming reality. And that I am going to do my best to fight it. To that end I started by writing this piece for Screen Trade magazine, this month's issue alone is a really good piece of work and all I can say about Screen Trade is it is not a wholly owned entity or so driven by the ad dollar that they will actually print something interesting and a bit incendiary. Good on them. And they are getting good ad dollars (or pounds) too. The article that was written for Screen Trade was picked up here by www.indiewire.com and the ditor tells me it has become the hottest article they ever ran other than an Oscar story. Thanks to Indiewire and all of you. Since then.... I have been mailing and emailing film critics, directors, film companies, writers, web sites, etc. and soon will move to include states attorney generals, governors, etc. I'm not going to lay in bed thinking "someone should have done something." Engaging this debate has been clarifying for me: it's not about digital cinema. it's about a technology change that was gerrymandered into a trust that excluded the more rural and less wealthy. It's as if we were told you can only drive a Cadillac and anything else must get off the road. Lots more analogies apply but that will suffice. I realize this isn't everyone's fight and that the players like NATO (arguing rather ironically for the destruction of theatres) and the MPPA who hired Senator Dodd for defeating any government backlash, and the equipment cabal that conspired to create a level of tech standards that would be inescapably high priced; this group will not and probably cannot, be slowed or defeated or even persuaded to bend or care but I do intend to fight them and their evil plans. I say that with a bit of movie-esque sense of humor. I'm not totally nuts here. I just can't abide bullying. I will do my best to take a T-65 X Wing Star Fighter and shove a lucky shot into their Death Star. May the force be with me. To all the people who have written, called, reached out and support this fight I say than you. Who wants to support Goliath over David? Indiewire has asked me to write a follow up piece and I hope it will be of continuing interest. Spread the word.

• Kevin Kent | April 10, 2012 12:15 AM

  Keep up the fight, you are my kind of guy. As a flimmaker, a digital "print" takes some of the power away from the big distributor... maybe. I grew up in a small town with one glorious theater.

• W3bgrl | March 13, 2012 10:58 AMReply

  While it's sad to lose the analog film as an art-form, it's actually much cheaper for indie filmmakers to produce and distribute their film digitally now. Print traffic shipping costs, digital to print transfer, storage costs, etc are a huge drain that are directly incurred by the filmmakers and their distributors, not by many of these indie theater companies. With the old technology moving out, the cost to repair and maintain the projectors and films themselves is too high. As the cost of the newer technology drops, it will become more cost effective for these theaters to go digital, AND keep the old analog system for cult and retro films. This is where indie theaters can set themselves apart and actually create a loyal audience, as the large chains sell and move out their "old gear". The good thing is they can shop around for the best price on the digital systems - there isn't only one or two companies installing and manufacturing these digital projectors.

• Mike Hurley | March 14, 2012 3:39 PM

  35mm systems for theatres are going to the junkyard. There be no 35mm prints period. Loyal audiences can be built only out of a substantial demographic grouping. You cannot build a following for indie films in small town America and do so as a profit making business. Maybe down at the library for 12 friends. What's clear when I read responses here is that these are primarily people who live in larger areas and have zero idea what small town America is like. They are experts at cities and suburban life but get away from major populations and the average commentator is lost.

• Bill Dever | March 12, 2012 6:40 PMReply

  An organization call the Independent Theatre Alliance has been establish to help combat this...please go to www.ita-usa.com

• Lisa H | March 11, 2012 1:33 PMReply

  The government is never going to step in because 1) arts funding of any type is, unfortunately, unpopular with voters, and 2) this technology replaces workers. Even though the workers would otherwise be fired because the theater closed, it's just not politically viable. The movie studios that spend $250 million on stuff like John Carter might consider getting involved -- surely there's some way to make it a tax write-off. But asking big distributors to pay for their competition is probably a non-starter. They WANT the indie theaters to fail.

• mplo | March 9, 2012 10:37 PMReply

  It matters quite a bit, imho. The more independent, non-profit movie theatres close, the great the chances are that anyone will lose their favorite independent movie theatres at anytime, if one gets the drift. I think they're trying to isolate us from each other by closing off all of the smaller theatres and just leaving us the big, antiseptic-looking multiplex cinemas that dot our highways and byways, overcharge for movies and concessions, have rude audiences, and play the schlockiest movies imaginable.

• Edward | March 9, 2012 6:43 PMReply

  When sound was introduced in to cinemas in the 1920s, how many theatres had to close because they did not properly plan for the future of their industry? Digital Cinema has been the future for so long, it is now our present. A number of forward-thinking chains started converting to digital five and six years ago. So the question is, why didn't those 1,000 theatres who should have known where their industry was going prepare for this years ago?

• Nikki | March 15, 2012 8:59 PM

  My husband and I own 1 of those 1000 theatres and have been trying to figure out how to convert to digital cinema since it was first rolling out. We positioned ourselves to be able to participate in converting only to find out we are too small. In other words our beautiful small town single screen cinema doesn't gross enough so we probably won't be able to collect any VPF's. The sad reality is that some of us actually want to convert and see the opportunity for small towns, however we are facing something that passion may not be able to get us through. The irony of it all is that as we struggle, film rental percentages have increased substantially with some of the film studios, probably to help pay for the vpf's that they have to pay the bigger theatres. Most of the studios could care less about the small town theatres and small town patrons generally want to see Hollywood movies.

• Martins | March 8, 2012 4:54 AMReply

  It's easy, big commercial cinemas and multiplex cinemas should be taken off say, 1% from their profit for subvention of the small and arthouse cinemas. This should be ruled by the goverment.

• David W. King | March 3, 2012 2:07 AMReply

  Is "Die" the only alternative available to these small theaters? Many of these are landmarks, if not national then certainly local. Although seen as movie theaters today, can they be used as alternative venues? I know that in each state there are hundreds of performers that would "Die" to play these old theaters.

• Wraukon the Excellent | March 2, 2012 1:00 AMReply

  Hollywood can jump off the cliff into their perfect sunset and go f*k themselves.

• mplo | March 9, 2012 10:41 PM

  I think the people who keep touting about how wonderful home theatre is should be told to go and f**k themselves. They're so full of BS that it stinks...all the way from high heaven to h**l and back again, if one gets the drift.

• mplo | March 9, 2012 10:40 PM

  You've made some good points, David W. King. I agree that "die" isn't the way to go. It shouldn't be that way. What kind of alternative venues are you thinking about, btw? Just curious. We need to preserve theatres for people who still wish to go see movies as they're meant to be seen...in a real movie theatre with the lights down low, rather than watching them on a cheap-looking home-theatre system.

• Clarence O'Herron | March 2, 2012 12:35 AMReply

  I was one of the last of the old time projectionists that changed from one machine to the other in the early 70s, there was 3 drive in's at this time and 3 indoor theaters,they all had a projectionist in the booth and were all manually operated and were carbon arc lamps ,well the indoor theaters were sold to a chain and the drive in's closed up -this was the start of the small town theaters closing in my town ,we now have a8 screen at the mall that is high priced ,seems like20 minutes of ads before the show even starts.My wife and I haven't been to a show in 2yr's it sucks because of the prices and the atmosphere , no body cares what the kids are doing,there is no ushers like in the old days at the indoor theaters.Yes it is a Damn shame the small mom and pop theaters are disapearing because of money ruling the land. there is a drive in here in IL. going through this right now-being forced into DLP,it is a twin screen , the owners don't know how they are going to do this kind of major upgrades and survive ,they are looking at possibly closing-------YEAH another one may bite the dust.

• David W. King | February 29, 2012 11:43 AMReply

  Is "Die" the only alternative available to these small theaters? Many of these are landmarks, if not national then certainly local. Although seen as movie theaters today, can they be used as alternative venues? I know that in each state there are hundreds of performers that would "Die" to play these old theaters.

• L.M. Kelly | February 28, 2012 8:07 PMReply

  My hope is to continue to have an alternative to the hugely expensive, $4 for a bottle of water, and very loud mega cinemas. The last time I went to one, I got there early and was subjected to a bombastic string of commercials for everything from TV shows to popcorn. I was hardly fit to watch the movie when it finally came on. I treasure my freedom to go to my local Flat Rock Cinema, have a veggie burger or popcorn, sit in a nice chair with a little table beside me and ENJOY the entire experience. I intend to do whatever I can to enable this small cinema to continue to provide this valuable service to our community. I don't support it just because it is small; I support it because it provides an alternative to the loud, expensive and impersonal big box cinemas. I love going to the movies and I don't want to loose that experience.

• mplo | March 9, 2012 10:44 PM

  I agree, L. M. Kelly. There are at least a couple of independent, non-profit theatres in my area that I support by holding annual memberships to, and by attending movies at both of those theatres. I figure that I'm helping to keep these two theatres in existence.

• Justin Eugene Evans | February 28, 2012 4:32 PMReply

  Mickey - With respect, HDCP compliant projectors are far less expensive. HDCP is simply a protocol created by Intel. Every laptop in the world is HDCP compliant and the cost is de minimus. While I certainly have a vested interest in this argument that doesn't make what I say any less true. Go to www.brytewerks.com to see The Model One, an HDCP compliant WUXGA (1920x1200) computer-enabled professional projection system that retails for $3,999.00. There is no reason for professional projectors to be expensive.

• Mickey Thurman | February 28, 2012 10:43 PM

  Thank you Justin. I was using information provided via some fellow historic theater operators and I have probably not used the correct terminology. Quoting an email: "You will have to spend at least 49,000 to 80,000 for a HDCP projection system. If you're spending less you will be buying an E Cinema projector, not a D Cinema projector. You can not run current releases either 1st run or 2nd run on an E Cinema system. You absolutely CAN NOT run 1st or 2nd run movies off of a DVD or Blu-ray." So possibly it's the D Cinema that is the issue.

• Justin Eugene Evans | February 28, 2012 5:30 PM

  Forgive the typo. The Standard Edition retails for 2,999. The Gold Edition is $3,999.

• Mickey Thurman | February 28, 2012 12:24 PMReply

  One of the things not mentioned here is that it's mostly the first-run small theater that will be hit. First-run requires HDCP compliant projection ($40K & up), whereas if the theater is running older movies they are allowed to license DVD & blu-ray a theatrical grade projection system, but those can start around $10K. There are many other theater groups discussing this, but you're right, it hasn't been publicized much. Many are scrambling to raise funds for the new projection system and some of the distributors are already limiting the 35MM prints. I help run an historic theater in Hoquiam, WA, (7th Street Theatre) and fortunately we show only the classics and have the DVD/blu-ray projection in place.

• Mike Hurley | February 27, 2012 9:42 AMReply

  Thank you for all the comments and for all the people who have written me directly. There's a lot of diversity in thoughts from the people who think there's an inexpensive work around to a fairly strong dose "who needs them?" for film distributors and to a much lesser degree movie theatres. One of the most difficult things to convey is that this will be happening to the smaller towns of the USA and the world. Yet these smaller towns are still where millions of people will no longer see movies where they are doing so today. For those who think: who needs 'em I will bet you live in areas where you have options. In tens of thousands of square miles across this country they do not share those options. Theatres that show first run films will not be replaced by viewing rooms showing unknown but up and coming projects. The effects of this historical first ever loss of film viewing is difficult to imagine. Last night I watched the Oscars, tens of millions of people saw those nominated films in small town theatres and my goal is to make sure they do in years to come. For me the bottom line is to slow the digital transition door closing on the last 35% of theatres, to ease the costs of that transition in any way possible, and insure that we do not lose these theatres as venues for the world of film (I suppose we'll call it that even when there's no film in sight!) entertainment.

• Justin Evans | February 25, 2012 3:05 PMReply

  Doesn't BryteWerks' Model One solve this problem? It's an ultra-bright computer-integrated cinema projector for only $2,999.00. www.brytewerks.com

• Observer | February 25, 2012 9:30 AMReply

  What of the Elephant in the room? If 1000 screens go, if theaters not run by massive overpricing corporations gojust how much more prevalent will pirating films become? How much more will the big film companies lose rather than gain in this situation?

• Mike Hurley | March 3, 2012 8:35 PM

  excellent point/ will millions of people just skip their movie fix or just help drive piracy demand? And what does the loss of millions of gross do to appearances of success?

• ImperialGuy | February 24, 2012 9:16 PMReply

  Of course, the chains don't care about the little theatres, even the classic ones. Most small town theatres will project you a movie on a nice size screen, in glorious 35mm (and some even with stadium seating, digital sound, even the dreaded digital projection) at 30-40% less cost to us, the consumer. The large national chains are following the same model as Wal-Mart and other big box retailers, put the small guys out. In the case of a theatres, they want the small theatres out of the picture so they can charge us way too much to see a movie, with no alternative. Home theatre, as great as it can be, in no alternative to the cinema experience. If there is no competition except other, similar priced national chains, they can continue to get away with charging 7.50 for a matinee and $10-15.00 for a evening show (Texas prices, folks). Price increases will become more frequent. At least Wal-Mart and their ilk make an effort towards lowering prices for their foreign made crap. I still don't want to shop there and I prefer not to hit Regal, Cinemark, etc. for a movie.

• Errol Byron Thomas | February 24, 2012 7:49 PMReply

  Going to the movies is no longer what it used to be. During the 70's and 80's periods,you were able to stay and watch the movies as many times as you wanted to for only $2.50-$5.00. To see a movie by its self for only one time is now $10.00. And man,does that really,really suck.

• F.P. | February 24, 2012 7:32 PMReply

  Let's be honest - the theatre experience has deteriorated, due to rude patrons and rising costs of everything involved. Not much can be helped about the former (Alamo Drafthouse's policy and shaming of the texting girl being a great exception to this). But theatres are victims of corporate distribs and studios getting greedy and sloppy with their product, as well as a public uninterested in seeking out indie films. What should happen with these non-corporate theatres was correctly identified by Michael Curtiss - a network of theatres is the right approach, but it's likely too late to make that happen effectively before time runs out. Even if this happened, if the perspective of indie theatres is that indie films don't sell tix, then aside from the historic factor and our own desire to support non-corporate cinema, independent filmmakers shouldn't feel much allegiance to them. Support has to go both ways, and while the theatrical experience helps give indies a much needed push when ancillaries come online, distribs are much more interested in day-and-date VOD than ever. It's only a matter of time before they drop theatrical altogether. I think we need independent theatres, and they could and should morph into facilities that promote and invest in 35mm film preservation AND independent film, but if they don't wish to adapt to the current landscape and their sugar daddies just dropped them, then if they perish, it's their own fault. It's called Adapt or Die - outmoded businesses die all the time, and replacements rise from the ashes. If they go, maybe 80 years from now, they will have an 'Artist'-like renaissance.

• Mike K. | February 24, 2012 5:06 PMReply

  A previous comment asked whey don't the independent theaters just use the VPF's? The reason is that the VPF process, was hijacked and turned into a complicated process with many "middle men". A big chain can work the process, but the small chains lose. An independent theater will have to pay out more to get into the VPF process than they will get back. We'd have to basically pay a $1.40 to get a $1.00 in VPF's.

• Michael Medeiros | February 24, 2012 4:56 PMReply

  Screen on BlueRay. Screen on DVD. But screen! Find a way! -- bennettparkfilmsdotcom

• Peter Mork | February 24, 2012 1:35 PMReply

  If it ain't film, it ain't the movies. What's digital? The correct word is video. Or, more commonly, TV. They want us to watch TV in a movie theater. It looks bluish and funny, and it always will. Film exhibitors should make an effort to reassure their customers that they care about presentation, and will do their best to project films in that are in good condition, in the proper format. That doesn't mean flawless. A few specks of dirt on a print only bothers those cranks of a non-artistic bent, and these are not our people. I think projected film's day is far from over in places where people understand the difference, and among filmmakers who do. Don't trust anyone who says "K" instead of "thousand". Don't trust anyone who posts on the internet.

• ImperialGuy | February 24, 2012 9:05 PM

  Amen, brother!

• عاطف ابوخليفه | February 24, 2012 1:26 PMReply

  المسرح هونبض الشارع الحى ويجب العودللمسارح الهادفه وليست التجاريه لان التجاريه بيكون الاسفاف فيها كثيرجدا ولاتحكى او تساعدفى حل مشكله وده الفرق بين المسارح الهادفه التى تظهر مشاكل المجتمع وتساعدفى حلها ام

• Miles Maker | February 24, 2012 1:08 PMReply

  So did these theaters simply refuse to participate in the Virtual Print Fee (VPF) program? It's a financing mechanism for funding the first purchase of digital cinema equipment in the replacement of film projectors. http://mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs/

• Adam S. Gerhard | April 27, 2012 3:48 PM

  No, all the small theaters didn't refuse to participate in the VPF program. Small theaters don't gross enough to get in on the VPF program. It is also a lengthy process and for small theaters, the cost of participating in the VPF ends up costing about the same as if they upgraded to digital on their own, which small theaters can't do. VPF was made to get all the big chains to upgrade their screens...film companies don't care about the small town theaters.

• Melissa Mogel | February 24, 2012 11:57 AMReply

  My dad would have enjoyed this article. Robert H. Lemer. Genius.

• James Russell | February 24, 2012 11:48 AMReply

  Yes. I agree that we need to save the small theatres... but how?

• Mark E. | February 24, 2012 11:28 AMReply

  Of course it matters that these theaters are disappearing, but sadly, the vast majority of folks would rather go to the multiplex and see the latest sci-fi/action/special effects/CGIed-into-oblivion blockbuster. Honestly, I don't see how these small theaters have been able to stick around or so long, I'd have thought most of them would have died 10 years ago when the huge theater chains popped up every last place possible.

• Derek | March 1, 2012 11:03 AM

  I manage and program the Little Theatre in Rochester, NY. We have survived for so long because we are a membership driven organization. Our members join on a yearly basis in return for a small discount on movie tickets and concessions. We also use our venue to host special events that bring in extra dollars to help us throughout the year. The topic of VPF's is interesting in that no one is talking about the the loss of control when you sign up to be part of the VPF program. Once the theatre commits to VPF's they lose all control over whether or not we need to cancel a show for any reason. In layman terms, we can't cancel a show for the night due to a special event. The special event could in theory bring in a few extra dollars compared to a film that we have been playing for a month or more, but if you are using VPF's then they say " why did you cancel a show and deny us our gross revenue"? From that point on they can say you can't have such and such a film. It's a no win situation for the theatre.

• Michael J. Curtiss | February 24, 2012 10:06 AMReply

  This sounds like an opportunity to create a network of small theatres who all assist one another in the exhibiting and preservation of non-digital media.

• Treve Kinsey | February 24, 2012 9:28 AMReply

  I own a discount theater that has 8 screens. It would cost us over $500k to convert. Even if we did have the money it would be a bad investment for us as the theater makes little or no money. We primarily cater to families that cant afford to take the whole family to a full prices movie and spend $100. We pay appoximately $70k in sales tax to the county and state and employ around 20. These closures wont just affect the theaters they will affect the communities. Jobs will be lost, tax money will be lost and in my opinion whole generations of movie goers will be lost as they either cant afford top see a movie or their local theater is no longer open. The big chains will be dancing in the street as there competition is forced to close.

• David W. King | February 23, 2012 10:41 PMReply

  Yes, it matters. But does this have to be? Historically, before many of these theaters were movie theaters, many of them, particularly those built before the 1930s served a double purpose. Many of the earliest small theaters were built for vaudeville. It was after the introduction of early cinema that many of them converted to movie theaters. Am I naive to think that these theaters could be used for alternative purposes? Could these same theaters be used once again for live performances? For the past several months I have been appealing to performers who would like to play the historic theaters of Michigan. This would include everything from the small theaters in smaller communities throughout the state to the larger theaters which still exist in the larger cities here in Michigan. Many of these theaters predate the earliest sound systems and are such superior to the bars, taverns, honky-tonks, etc., in which these performers play now. Would theater owners be open to allowing live performances? Or am I completely off-topic? I would like to hear from people who would be interested in allowing live performances, whether musicians or other performers. I would provide you an address to which you could write me, but I don't want to be accused of spam. Or worse.

• Jbmobley | February 24, 2012 8:43 PM

  You can email me at jbmobley@yahoo.com I am interested in live performance

• Dana Harris | February 24, 2012 10:55 AM

  You might try emailing Mike -- it's mike@pilut.com.

• annmarie woolsey-johnson | February 23, 2012 9:21 PMReply

  Looking for info on Hudson Valley cinemas closing for similar reasons. http://filmonista.wordpress.com

• julia marchese | February 23, 2012 8:38 PMReply

  there IS a petition to fight for 35mm! thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm

• Colleen | February 23, 2012 8:23 PMReply

  These are great Maine theatres--- truly one of a kind.

• bguest | February 23, 2012 7:43 PMReply

  Say it ain't so! Where oh where will I go to buy $6 bags of popcorn and $3 for 8-ounce coke? Where else can I spend $8 to sit thru 20 minutes of commercials? God save us from our favorite recliner and a 55-inch tv screen with no interruptions!

• Bguest | February 26, 2012 8:11 PM

  I don't give a damn what the filmmaker wants...I'll watch on my tv...if the filmmakers were serious about the theatrical experience they wouldn't sell rights to have their films on every digital format possible (tv, vod, dvd, etc.) so let the film purist crap have a rest...those guys love the theater until they can cash in on every digital format possible!

• mike hurley | February 24, 2012 9:40 AM

  very funny/ you'll still pay those prices because the plexes will roll on. But at the Colonial and most other small town theatres the prices are less than half of the cost you quoted. As a former owner of a video rental business and current owner of theatres there is an observable difference between people who go to theatres and people who prefer recliners. One is a truly immersive entertainment and social experience. The other is an isolated half measure at best. Not a terrible half measure but it is what it is. Sorry; I too watch films on my tv but there is a great difference: just ask any filmmaker: would you have your film seen on a wide screen in a theatre or on a tv?

• Oz | February 23, 2012 6:25 PMReply

  You know why his theatre is really going to die? Because he's showing Snakes on a Plane.

• Brittan Dunham | February 23, 2012 6:05 PMReply

  I don't think the whole "if you don't have digital you won't show a movie" thing has to be true at all for theaters that show indie/art house/repertory films. The TUGG or Kickstarter-type model could do so much for covering the cost of having prints struck and distributed to these small art house theaters. Independent distributors and archives have said that they have no plans to stop circulating prints as long as the materials are available. It's getting more difficult but I still think that, with some planning and initiative, film and the theaters that can't afford to replace their film equipment, can survive.
  
  There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation about how close we are to not having film anymore. The stock and projector equipment is still being manufactured. I think a lot of people are having knee-jerk reactions to the current situation (and those invested in digital technology are fueling the panic), but movie going has survived all sorts of ups and downs. I think people enjoy the experience of going to the movies enough that it can survive this.
  
  I want to hear more from the distributors, archivists, filmmakers and exhibitors who are thinking outside the studio box. A little collaboration and creativity will get us through this with fewer casualties.

• mike hurley | February 23, 2012 7:42 PM

  funny! No theatre makes it or goes under due to a great cinematic triumph such as SOAP (Snakes on a plane). But good one anyway. Guilty as charged. Big question: why did they not turn the heat down in the plane? Or is that just too obvious?

• Kevin John Charbeneau | February 23, 2012 5:44 PMReply

  Having been in all aspects of film, from production to distribution and exhibition, this article bothers me. The implications, the outcome. Yes, time moves on, technology upgrades, however, with two films - this year alone, that celebrate early cinema and the experience - THE ARTIST & HUGO, this needs to be rectified. Sooner rather than later.

• ImperialGuy | February 24, 2012 10:53 PM

  Ironic that both of these films are being showered with love from Hollywood since the studios obviously could care less about film preservation. They have no interest in saving 35mm and most of the titles that are available will never be converted to digital for distribution, save for odd title that Scorsese or some other respected figure would put their clout behind.

• Brittan | February 23, 2012 5:24 PMReply

  I really want to comment on this but I keep getting blocked as spam.

• Lenny Shapiro | February 23, 2012 4:57 PMReply

  The entire industry does owe a great deal to the single theatre circuits that have been a part of the community for decades now should not have to pay during this transition period for the digital conversion. They should be given a grace period for 2012-13 to save this money and put it towards conversion, if they decide to do so in two years, their option. We suggest all these theatres should unite and with a single voice present their greivances. Perhaps a committee to be set up by NATO. Thanks, Lenny Shapiro.

• JVD | February 24, 2012 11:22 AM

  Digital conversion is not something that has just now been announced. Exhibition has known that the day of 35mm was coming to an end as early as five years ago. The National Association of Theatre Owners have indeed been in communication with exhibition about digital conversion but some haven't been listening. Their procrastination has got them into this situation. I firmly agree that the only way to see a motion picture is in a theatre. I only buy DVDs of films that I have seen on the big screen and want to watch at my leisure. In my travels around the United States I have visited many theatres and multi-cinemas. Presentation begins when you walk through the door of theatre and ends when you walk out. In between a customer deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and service. He should be able to sit and watch the movie of his choice in comfort. You can complain about concession prices all you want but no one is making you buy them. You came to see a movie! Distribution companies get as much as 60% of the reported box-office gross during an engagement. The rest goes to the owner of the theatre. The theatre survives on the 100% of the concession stand sales and it's portion of the box-office receipts. He also receives 100% of the monies from his on-screen advertisers that the customers have to watch before each feature. Most of the independent theatre owners are their own worst enemy. The aforementioned procrastination and bad money mangement will be their eventual downfall.

• Lisa | February 23, 2012 4:39 PMReply

  This is a historic preservation issue! Old cinemas are important to downtown character. Tap into programs like Save America's Treasures or Main Streets. The latter already provides support for downtowns and early-mid-twentieth century cinemas are considered treasures to these groups.

• David | February 23, 2012 4:28 PMReply

  I will write about this tomorrow on my website (www.blackboardproduction.com) to try and spread the word. If we all get together we can save some of them. It is really sad...

• wayno | February 23, 2012 4:03 PMReply

  I would argue that the real problem is what has been displayed on the marquee. It's a double edged sword though. A small town one screen theater can only afford to stay open if it plays the broad fare that is offered to them by studios. Digital may be cheaper for filmmakers but Indy is pretty much dead as far as distribution. VOD is the only thing keeping the independent film alive. I work in 100% digital Indy theater in a major US city and we still only show Sony pictures classics and Fox Searchlight pictures regularly. No one seems to show up for the truly Indy fare, even when the director shows up for a Q&A. I doubt the expensive switch to digital will matter in terms of quality for smaller theaters but the issues we have with digital are ridiculous.(keys are late, colors are off, audio no sound, sound no audio, corrupted hard drive,wrong format, etc). At times they just run it on a Blue Ray. Why pay theater prices for that? If there were only a hybrid or a way to convert using the old lenses for 35 mm projection perhaps it would then be feasible. The question then is still whether anyone will show up. They can watch everything on their IPAD in any venue they walk into. Why pay the price to sit where everyone shows up late and talks or texts during the feature. The theaters are also usually run by 15 year olds that are apathetic toward the horrible pay and entitled Iphone owner that frequent the theaters. Society has changed and film is dead. Sad, but true.

• Joel Hulett | February 23, 2012 3:07 PMReply

  Wow, this is significant as these are often the art-house theaters on the forefront supporting indie film. I agree with what Dylan Marchetti. I think that it will take action at the local community level as well, and that perhaps a series of DIY campaigns from filmmakers linked with crowdsourcing fundraisers like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo might be one avenue to employ, but undoubtedly there will be other creative ideas. I bet Convergence through Sundance is already networking on this, and hopefully as a film community we will look for ways to help our local theaters. Joel Hulett www.filmstartgroup.com

• 9inchesandrising | February 23, 2012 2:59 PMReply

  Let me clarify, I love small cinemas and they will prevail in the END! Ultimately the big chain theaters are the ones who will die off in masses. We will always have an Alamo Drafthouse! Always, FOREVER! But the greed ugh its sad and sucks, my apologies for all the cussing before...I really want every cinema to live! ahh the internet...now you know how many online dates I've ruined saying the wrong thing! PEACE!

• 9inchesandrising | February 23, 2012 2:53 PMReply

  Dear Cinema Goofballs! The elephant on top of this theater made my day! The ticket prices to see a movie at 8pm on Friday night are WAY TOO HIGH! I have to be rich now to just ask a girl to the movies? Because with popcorn we are talking between 30 and 40 dollars - GO OUT OF BUSINESS please! YOU GREEDY PIGS NOW YOU'RE ALL GONNA F*CKEN DIE! Because of GREED nothing to do with technology, nothing to do with this article, it's just PIG MADOFF CINEMA! SIMPLE MADOFF AMERICAN GREED! You stupid F*CKEN PIGS! wait also... Love the Titanic metaphor. THAT WAS SPOT ON! I got inspired to use a metaphor as well "MADOFF"!

• Dylan Marchetti | February 23, 2012 2:48 PMReply

  This whole conversion has been handled so poorly that it's a miracle it's only 1,000 theaters. Speaking for my company, and several other indie distributors who can reveal themselves- a lot of us don't care for this digital conversion either. It's not for us... it's for Warner, and Sony.
  
  From a money standpoint, we don't like paying VPFs, not because we want to begrudge you new projectors but because we have to pay new ones every time we open a new theater... whereas we could bicycle 35mm prints across the country. Does Warner save money not striking 7,500 prints of Harry Potter that all open the same day? Of course. Do we save money paying twelve VPFs instead of playing the same 35mm print at four theaters? No.
  
  We also don't like dealing with vendors who are asking for thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars to convert our films into the proprietary DCP format (which, for the most part, is pushing a button and making sure all comes out the other end ok), fees we suspect are grossly inflated in order to replace revenue they've lost from 35mm film-outs.
  
  Further, we aren't thrilled that we now have two classes of release- those films we're willing/able to undertake the expensive of releasing on multiple formats (because of the conversion, we can't do digital OR 35mm, we currently have to do both in order to do a proper release, which puts our tight budgets over the top in some cases), and those films that we are able to play with the independent theaters who have can run a Blu-ray disc or Quicktime Pro-Res file.
  
  And about Blu-ray/QT… they look and sound great when properly projected, nearly identical to 2k DCP digital on anything except a giant sized screen (and yes, we do care, so we've looked at A/B split screen projections- I can say for sure that a well-authored Blu-ray is indistinguishable until the screen hits 35 feet). The projectors are significantly cheaper, and the Blu-ray copies are $30 instead of $175 plus a $700-800 VPF. This enables us to release smaller films, and it works. Several fellow distributors do this, and we’ll continue to, as long as there are theaters we can work with. Other technologies, such as Emerging Cinemas, also help matters.
  
  But should we discover that one day we wake up and it's DCP digital or nothing, we’ll have no choice, and we'll go back to our filmmakers and explain “sorry guys, but I have to move $7,000 to $10,000 from your marketing budget into digital duplication and VPFs”. This may stop some of the smaller, and often wonderful, films we’ve released in the past from making their way to theaters (sometimes the entire budget is under $10,000). To me, that’s a huge tragedy. I trust my fellow independent theaters will help ensure that's not the case.
  
  But then, that's where the rub is- if you are happy playing true art house and independent film, this transition is probably going to work out just fine for you. But if your business model depends on playing The Descendants, The Artist, or even Spiderman, well, that’s where it starts to get real dark real fast, and I don’t know what to say. The major studios have decided to abandon you. They have done the math, and flawed as both that math and their thinking may be, have decided that you are officially an inconvenience to their business strategy. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider the usefulness of the studios in general to your business strategy.
  
  Losing a single movie theater is sad, losing a thousand is unforgiveable. The shortsighted thinking behind writing off that big a chunk of their audience proves that the powers that be at the studios don’t particularly understand their audience, their product, or how one connects with the other. Taking another look would be wise- only this time, not solely looking at the bottom line for the next five years.
  
  Instead, perhaps the studios should consider the cultural significance of films seen in a dark room with strangers, and how that feeds the entertainment industry as a whole. Because that experience is something that's powerful, even (and perhaps especially) in a small town, and although the major studios may not be willing to support it, the independent end of the industry is.
  
  Some of the thousand theaters you've mentioned will not close, because they'll be able to evolve. They will open their doors, and screens, to independent films, special events, and alternative content. In the process, they will develop their own relationships with local communities, rather than using studio ad buys to do so. But I'm no Pollyanna... the reality is that some will do this and thrive, some will struggle, and some will fail. And many will be simply unable to make an alternative model work without the big studio films, due to audience tastes or mortgage bills or whatever, and that's the avoidable tragedy of all of this.
  
  Since this is on indieWIRE, I can say I know the indie side of the industry will do all that it can. I wish I could say that it would be enough. But just like many independent films, this movie doesn't have a Technicolored 1950s happy ending. It's more ambivalent. The characters are looking at each other, there's a hard decision to make... and that's where the film stops and the lights come up. It's up to you to determine what happens next.
  
  

• Dylan Marchetti | February 23, 2012 2:19 PMReply

  Well, I tried to comment, but got a bit carried away and the spam filter is rejecting me, so I posted my comment on the Variance blog instead. Sorry, promise it's not a trick to sell sneakers or time-shares or anything like that.

• Tetsuki Ijichi | February 23, 2012 1:41 PMReply

  So, doesn't another digital projection such like with HD cam, DV cam or Blu-ray work for such a small theater? Can't any small theater become an art house or community film center?

• Adam S. Gerhard | May 4, 2012 11:54 AM

  As Dana mentioned the short answer is "no". The Theaters in the USA project at 2048 pixels wide...normal HD projectors only do 1920. So a normal digital projector can play BluRay...but it cannot play new movies out of Hollywood (All the copy protection and junk on them). So a smaller theater could by a cheaper digital projector, but they would immediately limit themselves to on showing products already out on BluRay to the public. History has show that once the movie is available, people don't tend to go to see it in a theater...or if they do, not enough people to keep the theater alive.

• Dana Harris | February 23, 2012 1:48 PM

  Mike can speak to this better than I, but -- in short, no. Theaters are looking into hacker solutions like the ones you suggest but at this point the tech isn't sophisticated enough to support workarounds. Likely will be in the future, but that will be too late for a lot of these theaters.

• David Deere | February 23, 2012 1:39 PMReply

  Quite thoughtful for a juvy from Jersey. Nice work Mike, way to make people think

• mike hurley | February 23, 2012 1:44 PM

  my man Daddy Dave/ hope you are well/ write me baby!