great, as if going to the movies wasnt bad enough.

[Kam]

In a move that i am not sure how got past antitrust laws, Loews and AMC have joined up to form one giant monopoly. i am SO SURE the combination will result in less ads and lower movie ticket prices. argh. i hope the theater owners start to shape up and help make going to theater a fun experience again. not to mention help by being a little more flexible and actually exhibiting movies that dare versus movies that dare not.

[Woochifer]

Yeah, this combination means that one company controls about one-third of the movie theater screens in the U.S. I don't see any benefit to any situation where one company controls so much of the market. Unfortunately, you already have this situation occurring regionally where one theater chain might control a large majority of screens in a given area. It can lock out competition when bidding for the rights to screen certain movies.

Regal is the parent company of Lowes (which was formed by a merger of Lowes, Sony, and Cineplex Odeon theaters), and they got to where they are through mergers and by acquiring the assets from bankrupted movie theater chains such as Edwards, United Artists, and Carmike. Most of the major theater chains got into a virtual arms race when they started building gigantic megaplexes in the late-90s.

The number of screens during the 90s I believe doubled. Problem is that spending on movie tickets did not come close to keeping pace (in constant dollar terms). And when those chains went on that building binge, they wound up canibalizing their own neighborhood theaters. Even if they shuttered those smaller theaters, they still had leases on them. Only after filing for bankruptcy did those theater chains get out from under those obligations.

Unfortunately, being able to support theaters that "dare" is more about the market conditions than anything having to do with the ownership patterns. Often, it just has to do with how large a population base is available. And one leg that independent theaters used to stand on, reperatory programming (i.e. second run and classic films), has pretty much been wiped out by the DVD. The theaters that showed more adventurous programming would try and mix reperatory/thematic programs with newer films. By combining a variety of programming, the theater could appeal to a larger audience. But, the options are now a lot more limited because much of that audience has gone to DVD purchases and Netflix.

In general, I think the whole moviegoing experience has gotten very generic, and the audience no longer views the movies as a special time out. This indifference is reflected in the general rudeness of movie audiences, and the presentation quality at a lot of these theaters (the equipment is actually a step up in many cases, but the attention to detail just isn't there).

One ironic glimmer of hope that I see is in just how generic the moviegoing experience has become. It's inevitable that some portion of the audience will demand something different, and that opens up opportunities for alternative ways of presenting movies. A couple of newer theaters in L.A. have tried going to small screening room configurations with large leather seats. The Arclight in Hollywood (built around the Cinerama Dome) has gone to reserved seating and 21 and over screenings with cocktail service. They charge higher ticket prices, but they also provide a level of service that you don't see at megaplexes, with ushers stationed at every screening, minimal advertising, and very high presentation quality. Whether or not this model can play outside of a company town like L.A., who knows. I know that for my viewing, I'm fine with paying $2-$4 more for a movie ticket if it means that the theater can create a more pleasant experience.