Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Loews/AMC merger

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Loews/AMC merger (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Loews/AMC merger

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-21-2005 08:49 AM

Today. AMC and Loews announce a merger, the combined
company to be called AMC Entertainment Inc.

From the press release:

quote:

AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation to Merge

Kansas City, Missouri and New York, New York - June 21, 2005 - AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation, two of the world's leading theatrical exhibition companies, announced today that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement that would result in the combination of their businesses and the merger of AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation. The merger agreement also provides for the merger of their respective holding companies, Marquee Holdings Inc. and LCE Holdings, Inc., with Marquee Holdings Inc., which is controlled by affiliates of J.P. Morgan Partners, LLC and Apollo Management, L.P., continuing as the holding company for the merged businesses. The current stockholders of LCE Holdings, Inc., including affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, The Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors, would hold approximately 40% of the outstanding capital stock of the continuing holding company.

...

Makes me a bit grumpy here in Boston where Loews dominates and the only non-Loews multiplex in Boston proper is an AMC...

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: Boulder Creek, CA.
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-21-2005 11:12 AM

It was only a matter of time given the preasure REG is putting on the other chains.
I'm wondering what will happen to Century and wheter or not I'll see a day I trade in my CW polo shirts for Regals.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 06-21-2005 11:38 AM

I guess I'll have to reword my résumé once again. [Eek!]

(having worked for Cineplex Odeon, Loews and AMC)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 06-21-2005 12:21 PM

I ued to work for EDWARDS (Damn, I miss that company...they knew their stuff...) when the announcement came across of the Anshutz buying the interests of the three circuit's (Regal, EDWARDS, and United Artists) Chpt 11 orders, thus making a new company of REG, I figured that even with this buyout, that the operations would stay the same. WRONG! Regal, being the largest of the three, was given authority to be the one in charge of operations, (which some of us were given warnings on their operational tactics if we wanted to leave or not, and if we left, we would be given a severance package) but with this new management style, a lot of UA and EDW's people left. Course, with this merger became the largest circuit in the States.

Now, with this AMC/LCE merger, wonder if this new circuit of AMC Entertainment will also begin to gobble up smaller circuits, just to keep in the competition with REG as the largest circuit. For AMCE will have to gobble up at least another 1200 screens to overshoot REG to be the biggest.

..getting kinda scary on what's goings on in the theatre business world - a new theme of "just want to be the biggest, not the best?"

One can also see the huge increase of home theatre sales with this as well.....

-Monte

[ 06-21-2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 06-21-2005 01:06 PM

re: biggest / not best

reminds me of the banking world in the past decade or so.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-21-2005 02:35 PM

It will be interesting to see what this means for the smaller Loews theatres (e.g. the Uptown in DC and the Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.). Since buying out GCC, AMC has closed or sold several of the smaller (fewer than ten screens) houses that they purchased, since their business model (such as it is) tends to be focused more on theatres with large numbers of screens.

What will happen to the Loews name? It would be a shame to see one of the great names in exhibition history be scrapped.

Personally, I tend to think that the consolidation that has been happening in this business is a Bad Thing (tm) (r) (c) for consumers, leading to fewer choices and higher prices, but it may actually be good for independent exhibitors who can find a niche that the industry behemoths aren't interested in or able to fill.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 06-21-2005 03:19 PM

That's a good point I hadn't thought about. With more and more uniformity, a theatre with a different 'agenda' would certainly make an impression on some of the moviegoers, hopefully a good impression.

As to the Loews name, I would hope that it would be similar to what Regal did, in allowing Edwards and United Artists keep their names (well, from what I've seen, though I imagine there may have been some that have changed), especially with a name like "Loews" ... but then again, one never knows.

| IP: Logged

Stephen LaPadula
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: New York, Ny
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 06-21-2005 03:36 PM

I'm wondering what this means in terms of a monopoly on some markets. For example, between AMC and Loews on Manhattan alone they own about 75% of the screens (there are 11 Loews, including the Michael Johnson totaling just under 100 screens and the 25 screens from AMC) With only 29 Regal/UA screens and a hand full of much smaller companies, most or which aren't 1st run so they don't count anyway. I imagine that either the Empire or E-Walk, probably E-Walk would have to be sold, possibly others??
I think there is a similar situation in Boston and DC with AMC and Loews dominating those markets... although I'm not very familiar with those cities.
Does anyone else know of any other cities perhaps Chicago or anywhere else that there are mostly AMCs and Loews?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 06-21-2005 03:50 PM

..in the conractural clause with the REG consolation is that after 5 years of the merger (which was in 2002), the names of EDWARDS Cinemas, United Artists Theatres, and Regal Cinemas can be officaly changed to whatever the corporation elects to change to.

..probably be the same with the AMC/LCE merger - probably a designated year probation before officially changing the names on the theatres within this organization.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Dan Suomi
Film Handler

Posts: 53
From: Aurora/Oswego, IL
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 06-21-2005 04:00 PM

In Chicago, there are mostly Lowes and AMC, with a few Century, one Regal, A couple of Marcus and Cinemark. With this new merger Chicago will be mostly AMC. Makes me wonder what about this country's monopoly laws. I think AMC will now have 90% of the market share in Chicago. I wonder if all Lowes theatres will now be renamed to AMC?

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-21-2005 05:50 PM

As far as monopoly laws I am not sure exactly how they work. But, there may be the issue of the fact that movie theatres fall under entertainment and there are many formss of entertainment such as video stores, cable tv, broadcast television and so on. So long as there are other ways to get your entertainment the government is not going to say much about it. Now if complaints are made vthat one can not get buildiung permits and such to buildd a theatre or someone within the theatre organization tries to find ways to prevent someone from building in a perticular area then the laws may apply.

What will be interesting is after everyone figures out that we just had the worst year at the box office since 1985. What will those over sized companies do then? Start closing more screenss and scrambleing around trying to avid bankruptcy.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-21-2005 07:42 PM

Unfortunately, consolodation of this sort may be a necessary evil. The way I see it, the big film distribution companies have been giving the exhibition industry a very raw deal. Perhaps if there are two titan-sized chains they might have enough clout between themselves to carve out better deals and get Hollywood to reverse some of its obvious anti-theater tactics (shortened theatrical vs. home release windows, better versions of the movie on DVD, etc.).

This merger won't lead to any quality improvements in theaters. If anything, the cost cutting is going to continue. With less and less competition there won't be much pressure to build new locations with lots of nice stuff. Home theater technology will be the only "equalizer" in that equation.

I agree about an opportunity being present for smaller circuits and indie theaters to showcase more independent film product and foreign films. This strategy may only work in larger cities where a larger market base of very educated film fans is present. It's tough to promote a foreign film or indie flick in a city like where I live and have significant attendance numbers. In the end, we get the movies we deserve. The general public in the United States clearly prefers to be spoonfed the same old shitty big budget slop. They're voting for that kind of product with their dollars.

| IP: Logged

Mark Pierce
Film Handler

Posts: 11
From: Mount Juliet, TN
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 06-21-2005 09:19 PM

Somewhat on the topic...

Diddn't Lowes just buy Famous Players in Canada? If they did that pretty much means that AMC owns Canadian cinema now.

| IP: Logged

Jeff Knoll
Film Handler

Posts: 26
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-21-2005 10:21 PM

No, it is a coincidence that it happened within days of the Canadian merger, but the Canadian arm of the Loews Cineplex organization was purchased by the Canadian investment group that owned the small market exhibitor Galaxy Theatres. It is Cineplex Galaxy that is in the process of purchasing Famous to make our own super-monopoly.

As part of the new Canadian merger/aquisition, they are required to divest themselves of 35 location comprising 284 screens in 17 cities representing annual revenue of $100 million. I would be willing to bet the the new AMC will be writing a cheque to stengthen their presence in the Great White North.

| IP: Logged

Scott D. Neff
Theatre Dork

Posts: 919
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 06-21-2005 10:28 PM

According to the article in Variety, I took it to mean that all the theatres would operate as AMC houses.

I think where Regal was concerned, it would have cost too much money and confused too many people to turn the UA and Edwards signs into REG signs. From what AMC did with the GCC signs, I wouldn't be surprised if they spend the millions to update all their signage.

*starts a sign company in Loews heavy markets!*

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.