Actually, there is a loews near my parents' house here in spring, tx (which I previosly mentioned in another post) that is really nice for being biult in 1984.
It is still pretty decent today.

If loews was able to and would spend the money to upgrade their sound systems (one house in digital, 5 in stereo, 4 in mono) and redo their seats (very uncomfortable and non-stadium of course) it would be and excellent place.

But when Cinemark opened the Tinseltown in the Woodlands, their business dropped drastically.
They were the only theatre in town that summer that didnt have a huge line for independence day.

I'd still like to go in one day and ask if
I could take pictures for the site.

Name a chain that's over 15 years old, that that has always run an acceptable operation, with over 300 screens.

Over in the ground level forum, I posted a press release annoucing the closings which included a list of cineplex/loews theatres slated for closure.

Well, your standard of what is acceptable is no doubt different from mine, but how about Century? Of course, I can't really say whether they have always done a good job -- I've only been attending their theaters for the past 3 years, but so far I like what I see. And they show no advertising other than previews before the movies.

Besides, I should have made it more clear in my original post that it's the conversion to digital that I'm worried about. I honestly wouldn't mind if digital is done right, but based on Anschutz's track record in other businesses (just do a web search for "consumer opinion" in regards to Qwest), I doubt that he will do it right. Those theaters he owns will be permanently stuck with the crummiest, lowest-resolution digital projectors money can buy. I just know it.

What's going to make this even more unbearable is that the press will undoubtedly cheer him on. They will keep referring to this as a "revolution", because hey, anything "digital" is automatically better than anything else! The press will also repeatedly talk about how film is a "bad" and "old" technology that has all these problems like scratches, dirt, etc. -- the usual worst-case scenario arguments. No mention whatsoever will be made of the kind of high-quality, problem-free film presentations that we all know are possible. And no mention will be made of 70mm, either, because it's been a few years since that was popular, and after all, any technology that didn't see widespread use in the last 24 hours, doesn't need to be reported on.

In short, what I'm worried about is that he will set the bar for movie presentation quality even lower than it is now, while the media sits back and cheerleads. It's depressing and disheartening, but at this point it sounds like that's what's going to happen. Sad.
------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.

Your points are well-taken, but (this push for digital) is happening in several places. Anschutz didn't start it, and he's no where near the only one (although he does also own technology to move it along.) And, with this big shake-out in the exhibition industry, some one was going to buy some theaters... better that, then they close and people their jobs.

I've seen some really, *really* good video projection. In some places (smaller screens) it would be good enough to replace 35mm. I've seen some very bad 35mm presentations, so video is not evil by itself.. it's how it's used.

I tend to agree that the theaters are going down hill, but after projecting for 25 years, I don't know wheather they really have, or I'm just an old fart..

John: I agree it's better that someone buy the theaters rather than for them to simply close and put people out of work. I'm just lamenting the fact that it has to be this guy.

I understand that the push for digital is coming from various places (mainly from people who stand to financially benefit from it), but Anschutz is the first person in a position to really make it happen on a largre scale. And based on this article, it sounds like he's really hell-bent on doing so. That bothers me, because I doubt he will try to do a quality job. (Side note: the article I linked to also contains hints of the mindless "it's digital therefore it's better" blather we'll no doubt be hearing more of in the near future).

I certainly don't think video is evil. Of course it is theoretically possible for digital to match the quality of a good film presentation, even 70mm; after all, what's hitting the screen are just light patterns, they could come from anywhere, and the viewer would never know the difference. However ... the systems I've seen demonstrated (as well as the specs on upcoming systems that people are hyping up) just don't cut it. Yet people like Phil Barlow of Disney are saying that it's already "good enough". And everything I've seen and heard has led me to believe that "good enough" is all we're going to get. I find that depressing.