The show’s over.
October 29th, 2008 at 09:44am Will Pfeifer
It’s a sad day for moviegoers in Rockford, with the announcement that two of our local movie houses will be closing.
Though I don’t make it to the theater nearly as often as I used to (a toddler will tend to curb your moviegoing habits), I have fond memories of seeing of movies at Colonial Village and North Towne (way back when it was a first-run theater). I’m especially bummed by the loss of Colonial Village. Rockford should be a big enough city to support at least one theater that screens independent and “art” films, and I’m not sure those kind of smaller films will find a home at the ShowPlace theaters, where SAW V and BEVERLY HILLS CHUHUAHUA rule the screens.
Entry Filed under: Movie news, Moviegoing
7 Comments Add your own
1. Brian M | October 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
This kind of pisses me off, to be honest. That means we have NO second-run “dollar” theater, and NO theater to screen smaller films. and you KNOW they aren’t going to take up precious blockbuster screens at the Showplaces to make room for them.
This is the probem with one chain having a monopoly on the town. I’ve been lobbying AMC for years to open one out this way, as it would not only improve Rockford moviegoing (Kerasotes is mediocre at best), but pull in from everyplace west of Elgin, all the way to Freeport. Now with this development, maybe they’ll reconsider and step up? One can dream.
who is this “American Theater Corp”? Do you have any info on them?
2. Brian M | October 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Oh, wait… I jsut found this article. Not the kind of theater I’m looking for, or that Rockford needs. The last thing I want to hear when I’m watching a flick is people clanking their forks on their plates or talking to a waiter.
I really hate this city sometimes. There’s a reason people say it sucks.
3. echo4charlie | October 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
It smells like a tactical move to me. Enough people waited movies that they wanted to see out, until they hit North Towne as a $ 1 second-run showing. They still sold their concessions at the same price, but made 1/8th on each individual admission.
Now, if you want to see a movie, you have to either see it at full price in either Showplace, or, wait it out to DVD. Like everyone else in this economy, their trying to bolster profit. Also, trying to increase attendance to first-run showings. I guess you can’t fault them for that. But, a lot of people will miss out on the indie and art films, and there is a big following for that. It’s be fun if they could run those at the Coronado, but, I won’t hold my breath. It seems like steep, wishful thinking on my behalf, there.
Sorry to see hem go. Especially since may can’t afford the $ 8-$9 price tag (per person) to walk into the theater to see a movie. A family of 4 (there are no child admission prices) costs $ 36, or so, dollars walking in the door. A big popcorn + 4 drinks would be another $ 25, or so. So now, you’ve dropped approximately $ 60, or so, for a movie night out.
That $ 1 admission let people take their families to see movies they may not have otherwise been able to afford to see in the theater.
If someone waits for DVD rental, or digital cable “On Demand” viewing, the whole family can see the film for $ 5. If they buy it the first week of release at Wal-Mart, they’ll pay $ 15, or so dollars ($ 20 everywhere else).
If they keep this up, they may create a reverse effect, and more people may well stay home………..
4. Brian M | October 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Theaters would rather you see shows that have been out for a while over the newest releases - hence the creation of the “Five Buck Club”. They get a miniscule percentage of ticket sales for the first week or two, and the studios gets the lion’s share. As a film is out longer, the theater gets to keep a larger and larger share of the ticket revenue.
So they want tons of people in their theater to buy concessions (where they make their money), but they’d much prefer those people were buying tickets to the films that have been out the longest.
I’m sure it’s not a tactical move. They were pretty old and run-down and I’m sure the fact is, those theaters weren’t making enough $$ to stay profitable. I know any time I was at one of them, there were practically tumbleweeds blowing through the place.
5. echo4charlie | October 30th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Interesting point of view.
I agree, they didn’t keep them up very well. I don’t think they’d done anything with Colonial Village since the ’70’s.
My wife thinks that within our lifetime, we’ll see new releases in an “On Demand”-type scenario (on our home TVs and computers), and movie theaters will exist, albeit is a much reduced roll.
We used to have three drive-in theaters, six (indoor) movie theaters (counting the old Times, as it still ran movies when I was a kid, and the Coronado). Machesney and Cherryvale each grew to have two sets of theaters each, even.
Now we have the two, albeit they total 30 screens, and can probably seat more people than the others). I love seeing a movie in the theater, albeit it is very expensive, anymore. But, my wife may be right………………
6. Brian M | October 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I agree. It’s only a matter of time.
FIlmmakers are working hard to make moviegoing an experience that won’t translate to home theaters, so people will still go. Imax, 3-D, etc… The problem is, these films WILL eventually move out of theaters and onto home video, where these films will suffer because their gimmicks aren’t there. I say forget the gimmicks and just make good movies and people will attend. I for one love the actual experience of seeing a movie in a theater.
7. echo4charlie | October 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Me too.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed