90 cinemas close = 900 est. projectors/players/sound hit the second hand market?

[James Gardiner]

As I come from a country with more pokies per population then the rest of the world. This is not a new topic.

A key aspect of having gambling entertainment centres is. Not everyone gambles. If you want more people to come you need to supply entertainment for more then just people who gamble. It makes a huge difference. Why do you think all the shops around the casinos. Some love to gamble and some do not. Diversification in entertainment offering is key to maximise appeal to groups and families.

Again, why do you think new cinemas are building entertainment complexes with more then just a cinema and consessions stand. The reasons cinema entites are all doing that are the same reason cinemas on the strip would make sense.

I do agree that mega multiplex with a large number of screens is not suitable. But a minimum number screens, 3 for example, focusing on the latest tentpoles. Would.do fine. However, you have all experienced how clearances are used to enforce regional isolation between cinemas, in effect implementing a one coffee shop per town type result. And imagine the advantages and profit capability of a coffee shop that had no competition.

Those polices to push the industry to these position of maximising profits has a side effect of making it impossible to open cinemas on the strip that are suited to those locations.

I feel this position of the industry to preserve and maximise profits are also negative in terms of attendance levels for cinema.

Disney was right in that, a major reason they are focusing on streaming is because they are going to where the people are. While physical cinema industry is making it hard to go to were the people are. Putting everything behind massive cinema multiplexes, sparcly located long distances between each other. Making it a big deal for more people to go to a cinema, pushing them to consider and often just wait for streaming. Greatly eroding the number of visits per year per person, in effect requiring multiplexes to close screens they no longer need.

I.e NATO indicating 3000 and growing screen (not locations) closed and efforts to install restaurants, bars etc.

So cinemas are becoming more like Vegas. But Vegas still cannot have cinemas...

Can you see the irony and how the future of cinemas is in a very interesting position...

[Harold Hallikainen]

Regarding Las Vegas, I suspect most visitors want to experience something they cannot experience in their home town. Thus those expensive live shows instead of a movie they can see in a cinema at home. If, however, a Las Vegas cinema could differentiate the experience somehow (vastly superior presentation quality), then I could see it as a draw. But, if you only have a few days in Las Vegas, I think most people want to do something they can't do at home.

[James Gardiner]

I have been involved in a number of cinema installs in multiplexes at management level.

A cinema is a KEY tenant in any shopping centre. An example of this is when a cinema was pulled out of a shopping centre, the whole centre dropped 20% in turnover on average for all tenants. The centre basically PAID some cinema operator to come in and start running the place (Paid for/gifted the full re-kit as an incentive to open the 8 screen cinema again) as the benefit from the higher rent and % cut of turnover of the tenants would many times pay for getting the cinema operating again.

It's why many cinemas in shopping centres are getting super discount rent right now to ensure they don;t leave the shopping centres in this attendance downturn and COVID period. If it closes, its not likely to open again, and losing a key tenant like that when footfall is already suffering in the online-shopping era.... better to give them free rent. Those are the math.

This is the dynamics of having a business that pulls a lot of foot traffic. The benefit to the complex far outweights the cheaper rent you have to give a cinema to keep it viable.

Even major chains are catching on as pretty much all new cinemas these days are entertainment complexes, bars, restaurants and more and now expected in any new cinema.

So I'm sorry, I would have to disagree with you. I assure you they want these businesses that pull in a lot of foot traffic as it lifts the rest of the surrounding businesses.

Plus, many casinos have big theatres, probably 2 shows a day, paying talent stupid money to obtain this benefit. All to bring in foot-traffic predominantly.

Imagine if they could put in a 3 screen cinema playing the latest releases of that week., 5+ sessions per day per screen, automated, minimal staff. I can tell you they would do it in a flash (if they could get the content).

Vegas is no different to other big foot-fall destinations, it's just bigger.

Again, Cinema is a very common entertainment choice. The fact it is the only offering NOT found in the entertainment capital of the U.S. Again, this cannot be a coincidence. Cinemas are not on the strip for a reason.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Agreed with Tony. You don't go to Vegas to go to the movies. You can do that anywhere. Vegas's shtick is losing three figures on the slots while having a good time, or being screeched at by Adele (or not, if she wusses out again) or Celine Dion for a couple of hours, while being too drunk to be worried about the permanent hearing loss being inflicted on you in the process.

The "combined entertainment" model, with cinema as an intrinsic, but not the only part, might be the up and coming thing in the 'burbs and mega malls, but Vegas is a special case. The only market for cinema there is the same one as exists in other major metros: for people who actually live and work there, and the movie theaters that serve those folks are all well away from The Strip, where operating costs are more in line with what they are for movie theaters everywhere else.

Exactly, and even then since a good portion of those who live and work in Vegas work odd hours (The 24hr city that never sleeps and doesn't even have clocks in casinos), those workers aren't going to work late or overnight shifts and sacrifice sleep or family time to go out to a movie.

James claimed my arguments make no sense, well I think he is just arguing for arguments sake because of another thread, so he'll disagree with me just because. He says "I can tell you right now, many of these entertainment complexes would install a cinema in a flash if they could get content. They cannot so they don't. That's the ONLY reason they don't have cinemas."

Well sorry bud, that is totally WRONG for all of the reasons I listed, not least of which is the profit per square foot equation. Content availability has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. And the costs of land and building in Vegas would never make ANY sane businessman decide "in a flash" that building a cinema is a good idea. Even those "entertainment complexes" that DO exist in Vegas use every square foot for things that are guaranteed profit generators, like bars, shops, casinos, and live showroooms.

However, I do give him benefit of the doubt because he's from Australia, and the culture and habits of folks are totally different there, so what he says could well be true over there, but like it or not, his position doesn't work in Vegas. My former roommate from Melbourne, who worked at a Los Angeles cinema when he was over here, told me of the many differences in cinemas here have from the cinemas in Melbourne. Location placement was one big difference he pointed out, as he was surprised at how well even the theatres in crowded metro areas such as Santa Monica, Westwood, etc. with limited parking and no "entertainment complex" support did. (And still do.)

One of my colleagues did the installation of a cinema in Vegas, and it was very costly, and though well designed and located (as much as is possible in Metro Vegas area) it still underperformed compared to an identical screen count in other areas.

Bottom line is, history has proven that cinemas in Vegas are a gamble, you probably have better odds of winning at Blackjack or the Roulette Wheel than investing millions into a cinema in Sin City.

[Steve Guttag]

I think James may be correct here. First, if one can obtain, at appropriate prices, suitable additional equipment (spare projectors and servers), one could keep a Series 1 system going for a bit. So long as GDC still makes an S1 solution, the server potion is well addressed, with respect to failing mediablocks of SDI based servers.

It may also prolong the time of existing installed S1 equipment to obtain ready spares. Much of the consumables of an S1 (fans, filters, lamps...etc.) are still readily available.

[James Gardiner]

A lot of that retired equipment is likely EOL. Theater operators will use a number of criteria to determine what sites and screens to close, and I'm sure that projection and audio equipment being overdue for upgrading is one of them. No-one is going to want to relocate reinstall a Series 1 projector with an HD-SDI media block server (for which OEM spare parts are no longer available), a 5.1 only audio processor, and amplifiers and speakers that likely weren't new when the 35mm to digital conversion took place.

I can see a lot of regional towns and small cinemas still keen to roll the dice on getting this kit at 1/10 the price. Its not nothing..

[Leo Enticknap]

A lot of that retired equipment is likely EOL. Theater operators will use a number of criteria to determine what sites and screens to close, and I'm sure that projection and audio equipment being overdue for upgrading is one of them. No-one is going to want to relocate reinstall a Series 1 projector with an HD-SDI media block server (for which OEM spare parts are no longer available), a 5.1 only audio processor, and amplifiers and speakers that likely weren't new when the 35mm to digital conversion took place.

[James Gardiner]

Update on this.
According to this news article.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/25/movi...not-dying.html
3000+ screens have closed in the U.S. based on NATO figures, or down 3000 to 40000 screens or about 7% of screens closed so far. (And that's just the U.S. does NATO include Canada?)
So we are now talking 3000 Projector/Player/Automation/Soundprocessor/Amp/Speakers hit the second-hand market.
That is astonishing. Still, after a quick internet search, these systems are not hitting the open market. Not that I can find in general internet searches.
I expect this is a very controlled contraction.

I see a lot of cinema openings, considering so many closures, indicating to me they are racing into green field regions on the back of having all the expensive infrastructure already on hand.

It's interesting to see how the industry is dealing with the changing environment.

With Cineworld having no serious offers, we could also see another wave of changes as it may have no path but to liquidate.

[James Gardiner]

In Australia, our largest entertainment complexes (Typically one per city), which have casinos, all have a major running a large cinema in them. As well as restaurants, bars, sports bars, dance clubs, and theatres. Basically almost everything you can think of. It is only Vegas that I know of where it does not occur. But then in metro, where we have smaller entertainment complexes, it never occurs and cinemas are always individual entities and not part of a larger entertainment complex. Apart from a shopping centre (Mall), I do not consider Malls an entertainment complex, it has another focus.

In general terms, Cinema has always been considered the evidential reason people go out for entertainment. This is no longer the case. With so many options, people are leaning towards the entertainment complex as it's got a bigger menu. (Like deciding to go to the multiplex over the small independent 2-screen cinema that has limited films on offer). This is greatly reducing the drive-by traffic and overall attendance levels. This is why cinemas are changing into "Entertainment Complexes" (That happened to also have some cinemas)

We look back at the "rise of the Multiplex" period of the industry. Well, we are in the middle of the "rise of the Entertainment Complex" where cinema is only part of the story.

[Leo Enticknap]

Agreed with Tony. You don't go to Vegas to go to the movies. You can do that anywhere. Vegas's shtick is losing three figures on the slots while having a good time, or being screeched at by Adele (or not, if she wusses out again) or Celine Dion for a couple of hours, while being too drunk to be worried about the permanent hearing loss being inflicted on you in the process.

The "combined entertainment" model, with cinema as an intrinsic, but not the only part, might be the up and coming thing in the 'burbs and mega malls, but Vegas is a special case. The only market for cinema there is the same one as exists in other major metros: for people who actually live and work there, and the movie theaters that serve those folks are all well away from The Strip, where operating costs are more in line with what they are for movie theaters everywhere else.

[James Gardiner]

@Tony, Your argument makes no sense. The large entertainment complexes on the strip, yes, predominantly have gambling. But they have bars, restaurants, clubs, shops, live shows, etc. Basically everything else but for Cinemas. Not everyone gambles. I can tell you right now, many of these entertainment complexes would install a cinema in a flash if they could get content. They cannot so they don't. That's the ONLY reason they don't have cinemas.

The big reason we are seeing cinema combined entertainment complex push as the next big deal for cinema is that, as part of a complex, making money from different activities and having staff active and productive consistently is a huge deal. Cinemas get very busy, but they also have long periods of minimal activity with staff doing nothing.. Or when there is no good films around, they can be ghost towns. As part of a complex with many attractions, if one is not working, others likely are, allowing the locations to amortise the running costs over all activities and to also make sure the staff are actively making the venue money at all times.

The problem with this is, cinemas are becoming more like entertainment complexes, but then this effort to limit who can become a cinema falls down. If a cinema can become more like an entertainment complex, why cannot an entertainment complex add some cinemas? If that happened, Wow would there be an implosion of the current major exhibitors (As competition could explode).

Interesting times. And as you can see, why this reminds me of Kodak. Artificial limitations to maintain high probability, but when it breaks, it goes boom.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

<snip>

Look at Las Vegas for example. NO-CINEMAS-ON-THE-STRIP. That's crazy. It is suppose to be the pinnacle of entertainment destinations in the U.S. And no Cinemas. This cannot be accidental.

<snip>

You are correct, it is not accidental. The reason is all about money. No cinema complex will ever make more money per square foot than a casino. Casinos make millions, if not billions, per MONTH in Vegas. The average gambler will bet (and lose) more than $100 per person. Impossible numbers for any cinema (can you imagine a concessions stand that will hit $88-90 Per Cap? I don't think so.)

The few cinemas located off the Strip are doing about the same or worse than an average metropolitan area 'plex. Why? A large percentage (based on my many trips to Vegas, I'd say 96%) of people in DTLV and The Strip are there to gamble, not watch a movie. If anything, they want to see live shows with lunch/dinner in a nice showroom setting, with wait staff and drinks, not a cinema with no staff, close in seats and concession stand food.

As for more viable locations, what you said about becoming, or being part of, an entertainment centre or complex makes much better financial sense, but ONLY if the cinema owner also owns the rest of the complex. Too risky IMHO to lease space/buildings for a cinema as part of someone else's complex....just look at how mall based cinemas were treated. Best to own the land, building, etc. or not even bother in today's market.

[Sean Weitzel]

Here in the States many independents have built fairly large plex's to keep up with the Cinemark's, and often to lock the majors out of a given market.. But the Independents with single screen sites also do very well because they OFTEN offer a MUCH better movie going experience. People also love the old theaters. There used to be at least one MPX on the strip in Vegas. There is for sure one just off the strip at the Palms... It's operated by Brendan Theaters and has the largest Liemax screen in Vegas. iT'S A very nice MULTIPLEX!! I have also stayed at the gold coast, across the street from the Palms just to get away from the constant hustle bustle of the area where Caesar's Palace and the MGM Grand are at. I have also stayed at the Rio. The Rio has the best seafood buffet in town!

Here in Vacaville, CA where I live we have a Brendan 16 screen and I do have to agree they are highly customer service centric and also put on a quality experience for a reasonable price. (My only beef being they sell Pepsi products rather than coca cola).

The Rio's Carnival buffet closed permanently last April.

[Leo Enticknap]

We don't auction anything, but we do acquire used equipment, inspect / do due or overdue planned maintenance / repair as necessary, and then resell. If there is anything specific you are looking for, please feel free to contact sales {at} movingimagetech.com. If it's projectors you're interested in, shipping from Southern California to Canada will be pricey, but more viable for servers and smaller items, I'd have thought.

[Allan Barnes]

Please post any links for auction or sale of used equipment