AMC Theatres Has 'Substantial Doubt' it Can Remain in Business (cnn.com) 203
AMC Theatres, the world's biggest movie theater chain, said on Wednesday that it has "substantial doubt" it can remain in business after closing locations across the globe during the coronavirus pandemic. From a report: The theater chain, which closed its theaters earlier this year, expects to have lost between $2.1 billion and $2.4 billion in the first quarter. The company also said that its revenue fell to $941.5 million, which was down roughly 22% from $1.2 billion in the same quarter last year. This quarter, the situation has gotten substantially worse. "We are generating effectively no revenue," the company said in a regulatory filing Wednesday.
AMC will continue to monitor the "potential lifting of various government operating restrictions," but added that the chain has serious challenges even if restrictions are lifted. That includes studios holding back new films from being shown. "Even if governmental operating restrictions are lifted in certain jurisdictions, distributors may delay the release of new films until such time that operating restrictions are eased more broadly domestically and internationally, which may further limit our operations," the company said. The company said that it had a cash balance of $718.3 million as of April.
AMC will continue to monitor the "potential lifting of various government operating restrictions," but added that the chain has serious challenges even if restrictions are lifted. That includes studios holding back new films from being shown. "Even if governmental operating restrictions are lifted in certain jurisdictions, distributors may delay the release of new films until such time that operating restrictions are eased more broadly domestically and internationally, which may further limit our operations," the company said. The company said that it had a cash balance of $718.3 million as of April.
I guess that fight with Universal didn't pan out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy some of the theaters which have responded favorably to in-home theatres.
1. There's a local theatre that runs newish and old movies together on a single screen. They have real buttered popcorn. The movie prices are appropriate to what I want to pay ($5/adult).
2. Marcus Theatres has a local theatre which is smaller than the AMC, has much better seating, allows purchase online w/o fees, and has food and beer.
---
The AMC theatre in town is dirty, the employees surly, and it's fucking expensive for old-sc
Re:I guess that fight with Universal didn't pan ou (Score:5, Interesting)
Ehh, it cost them nothing to "cut off" Universal while all of their theaters were closed. It's a lot of bark, but until there's a major Universal release, no bite. In fact, looking through Universal's release schedule into 2021, there really isn't much lined up right now, so they can pretty safely go for awhile without missing out on anything major. For reference, sourced from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], here are Universal's biggest films set to release between now and this time next year:
- September 25: Candyman sequel
- October 16: Halloween sequel
- November 12: James Bond sequel
- December 23: Croods sequel
- March 26: Boss Baby sequel
- April 2, Fast and Furious sequel
- June 11: Jurassic World sequel
While there are definitely a few big names in there, there's nothing in the next few months that a theater chain absolutely must have. Arguably, the next one that matters is James Bond in November, but there's plenty of time to resolve a spat between now and then, especially if doing so can be turned into a publicity stunt that serves as free advertising for the film.
For instance, they may be in the news every day commenting on the James Bond film that's coming out soon and the drama surrounding AMC and Universal, as well as how the upcoming James Bond movie that's coming out soon may be the thing that causes them to finally reach an agreement because James Bond is coming out soon and James Bond is a huge franchise and this one is set to be one of the biggest James Bond films yet, with Hollywood and the theater industry pinning their hopes on the James Bond film that's coming out soon and depending on you to help save theaters by coming out to watch the James Bond film that's coming out soon. Did we mention James Bond? Because it's coming out soon.
At least, that's about how I imagine things will look come about October if they haven't reached an agreement before then.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the way I wrote that listing was a very intentional choice on my part to highlight the lack of creativity on their part. While I'm admittedly a sucker for going to the theater to enjoy the spectacle of something like a big budget action film, what I really want—whether at the theater or home—is that once-every-few-year experience of seeing a film that blows me away, and you'll almost never get that from a film in an established franchise.
Re: (Score:3)
AMC cut off Universal from their theaters after they pushed out Trolls to Apple TV. Theaters are dead, especially when they cost so damned much.
You are not wrong.. But Hollywood has a HUGE amount of infastfucture built around ticket sales at the local theator. So it's not just AMC that's going to suffer. As they go, so goes the industry. IF, AMC goes under and out of buiness (unlikely by the way) then Hollywood is going to have one serious problem.
So AMC may be going bankrupt and stockholder may lose their investment, but that doesn't mean they are done, unless the judge won't let them continue. Even then, they are more likely to be broken up
I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife was worried about bringing a bottle of pop into the last movie we saw. A few minutes later a guy sits down next to me with a shopping bag full of Chinese food and has an entire meal!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as the distributors release the movies on the Interwebs, I'm fine watching them from the comfort of my home. Sure beats paying around 80$ for a family of 4 to catch a flick.
You're not thinking about the whole picture. This won't affect just the few people who were employed by AMC Theaters; it also affects the farmers who raise the really expensive popcorn for those theaters.
Sure, they can switch to raising regular popcorn easily enough... but that stuff sells for 1/50th the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure beats paying around 80$ for a family of 4 to catch a flick.
If you're there to "catch a flick" you were going to the cinema for the wrong reason. If you're going there for mindblowing sound and video that you couldn't possibly match then you'd be on to something.
Re: (Score:3)
In thinking about this, honestly I just don't need my MIND BLOWN every movie. What's with this overwhelming urge to be bombarded by stimuli? I want to enjoy a good story and a good movie experience. I don't need to drown in an audio and visual tsunami. If your business model relies on very expensive snacks as well as constantly trying to have a bigger and move all-consuming picture and eternally louder-louder-louder sound, I think eventually people are going to become numb to it. Maybe we're there.
I'm remin
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps in the '70s, but the gap between what we can affordably have in our living rooms and what the theater provids is shrinking fast.
The idea that most consumers want or can even appreciate mind blowing sound has been put to rest in the era of crappy earbuds and headphones and even crappier name-brand earbuds and headphones (I'm looking at you Beats).
Re: (Score:3)
In a way, we're returning to the distribution model of the "Studio System" prior to the 1950s, where a small number of major studios owned a big chunk of the distribution system (i.e., movie houses). AMC is the successor to Loews Cineplex Entertainment, which used to own MGM Studios until anti-trust broke the company up.
There were independent theaters, but big studios exercised monopsonist power over them, forcing them to "block book" entire groups of movies, often before production had even begun on some
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
People used to go to the theater because they didn't have TVs at home. Then people got TVs but they were only black and white. Then they got color but most were 19" screens at best. Now its easy for most people to own giant high res TVs. They don't need movie theaters anymore.
Also, there used to be very limited content on TV and you were at the mercy of what stations wanted to broadcast. Now people can by DVDs or stream nearly everything ever made for a few dollars. Whatever is at a theater is generally available to stream at home within 6 weeks.
The average movie ticket is a little over $9. To go once a month with someone you would pay ~$216 in a year (before snacks). You can almost buy a 50" 4K TV with builtin ROKU for that price on Amazon.
Other than a place to go on a date and pay a 1000% markup on popcorn and coke, theaters don't serve much purpose.
Re: Sounds good to me (Score:3)
Having to share space with the typical US audience after wasting time, fuel and finding a place to park is no joy either, and in a theater I have to wear clothes and cannot pause the show.
Re: (Score:2)
What a joy is it to sharing the theater space with about 100 talking and chewing jaws, wrists that keep unwrapping plastic bags of junk food. Noooo. They want me to pay money to stomach this? Please release already films directly to streaming platforms and be done with the theaters.
movie theaters have sound that may cost 10K+ (Score:2)
movie theaters have sound systems that may cost 10K+ to get at home.
Re: (Score:3)
Valid point. If your primary focus on the movie experience is AUDIO, then it's hard to match that at home.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, they might, but most of the time Ive been to a theater they have them tuned so horribly that they sound like shit. I much prefer my own system at home where I can clearly hear everything and still get seat shaking booms over the squealing highs, all bass lows, or muffled mids Ive heard in so many theaters
Re: (Score:3)
I routinely go to IMAX for movies. (1) My 54" home TV - 4k, HDR - doesn't fill my peripheral vision in the same way, and nor did my 110" projector screen before that. If something extends to my peripheral vision then it feels more immersive. (2) At home I have fairly expensive 5.1 speaker setup including an awesome subwoofer but it still isn't a patch on what I get at IMAX. (3) Honestly, queuing up for the opening performance of Star Wars or Batman or Apollo 13 put in me a crowd of like-minded enthusiasts,
Distributors and producers should pitch in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Distributors and producers should pitch in (Score:2)
Hollywood and AMC can both die. No loss.
Re: (Score:2)
AMC and other theaters have been the bread a butter to the movie industry since hollywoods incarnation. They should step up and offer exclusives to AMC and others to help them remain in business. Otherwise Netflix is just going to keep producing their own films and slowly eat away at Universal, WB, Sony Pictures.
The theators AND Hollywood are in serious trouble already and are stuck managing the decline. Not much they can do about it.. Netflix, Amzon, HBO and more. are going to take them to the cleaners, producing original content and bypassing all the people who feed at the Hollywood slop trough.. I don't see how Hollywood and the theators avoid getting killed off like the buggy whipp makers.
It's going to take time, of course, for all these things to die. Covid-19 just may have hastened the process.
Down-Stream effects (Score:2)
I was wondering about this, as how can theaters survive being totally shut down for this long?
It makes you think about down stream effects though - they are doing new Avatar movies and spending a lot of money on them, but does it make sense to do giant expensive 3D blockbusters, if there are no theaters to show them in and people will only ever see them via streaming?
On the other hand, what kind of entertainment venues benefit if people are no longer going to theaters as much, if at all...
Re: Down-Stream effects (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it would affect the big blockbusters, but companies like Disney have released direct-to-consumer productions for decades now - often sequels to their earlier theater releases. It must be at least somewhat profitable to do so.
Cinemas are in a rut at the moment (Score:4, Interesting)
Restrictions were partially reduced this week and our local Cinema has opened up again, but due to the 30 people maximum rule in place here the cinema is open to members only. Awesome, quiet experience with a mostly empty Cinema, what's not to like. Let's see now:
Interstellar... Well that came out ages ago. ... ... Just! 1917, but I saw that in January.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt1 and Pt2... well that is even older than Interstellar.
Forrest Gump
Black Panther
Spiderman Far from Home
Oooh I found something that came out this year!
Lucky there's one thing on the list: No Time To Die, let me just select a session. Well apparently 11th November is the next one.
If this keeps up I may need to see that new Nicolas Cage movie. Or maybe I'll just stab my eyeballs at this stage either option sounds good.
Re: (Score:2)
The limited availability of new movie titles is due to film studios holding up the releases of movies they made a year ago and were planning to release in 2020 because they know that they won't recoup their ridiculous levels of spending in this corona-virus economy. As a result, the theaters that are now open are showing mostly has-been movies.
And in fact, I'd be surprised in there will be many long awaited blockbusters released this years. The collective Hollywood is backtracking new film releases into 202
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. A Nicolas Cage flick is awesome for a Friday night drinking session. Just not really for a cinema trip :-)
Going out of business isn't bad (Score:2)
AMC is a mega chain and one of the downsides to that is they are massively exposed to market forces that could impact them. Going out of business however wouldn't be the death of Cinema, just the death of AMC. It could very likely be positive for everyone as Cinemas are bought by small independent shops and start giving a shit about customers again.
I mean I hear the horror stories from America and I have to wonder if the experience is really that bad over there. Here going to the cinema is great. Comfortabl
Yes America has same theater amenities. (Score:2)
Here going to the cinema is great. Comfortable seats, reasonably priced beer, pre-booking with no need to show up early
AMC (and most other theaters) also had all those things as well (well, not sure about the reasonably priced beer), along with 34 choices as to exact AV experience desired (3D/Dolby/countless other AV marketing attributes). But pre-booked comfortable seats have been common for some time now... it was probably bringing on debt to build all that out that killed them.
I mean I hear the horror s
Re: (Score:2)
Going out of business however wouldn't be the death of Cinema, just the death of AMC.
After the 666th sequel to Transformers and the Incredible Hulk, 25th remake of Batman and King Kong, five sequels to Star Wars nobody asked for I already used to think that the cinema is dead. Maybe the collapse of the traditional movie theater will actually resurrect the cinema.
Those numbers don't make sense (Score:2)
They think they lost between $2.1 and $2.4 Billion in Q1, but in Q1 last year their revenues were only $1.2 Billion total?
That doesn't add up.
Just tap into your 6 months of savings (Score:2)
I've been told all responsible people have 6 months of savings in case of an emergency -- I'm sure AMC, being a responsible corporation, has at least that much banked away.
Even before the pandemic... (Score:2)
... they had to be concerned about the survival of the company. Disgustingly high ticket prices (plus who in their right mind buys snacks at the theater anymore?) seems to have been driving away moviegoers. Sure, we have to take into account that the studios may be a major force behind high ticket prices but it doesn't much matter---at some point customers will balk at the prices being demanded. We have a nice A/V setup at home already so paying $15+ (hell, that's freakin' discounted price for being a "memb
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the post covid world (Score:2)
Good riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
Who needs the movie theater experience anyways? I go to a movie theater only about once a year to remind myself how horrible it is. 30 minutes of previews and commercials. All of them are laughably bad. Chewing jaws all around you, chewing popcorn for about one hour, then sending a scout to buy another barrel of popcorn for the synchronized chewing competition group. Chewing continues the whole time, as does the talking, leaving the theater back and fourth to the restrooms and so on. About one fucking hour into the movie somebody starts opening an extremely loud bag of garbage food like some kind of chips. The cracking sound goes on for minutes. People, what the fuck up with you? You go to the movie theater to eat? And to eat ridiculously expensive junk food? And I paid to be in there, what maybe 15 bucks? Just forget it. These days anyone can afford some kind of a big screen TV and at least some kind of bar in their home. A rental of a recent film at RedBox costs about 2-3 bucks a day on an optical disk, or 5-6 bucks if you order it directly from their streaming app or Amazon Prime. Your entire family can watch it and you can stream it for 48 hours. Movie theaters can fuck themselves.
Curbside pickup of $10 popcorn (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:2)
I thought in capitalism we can expect new businesses to replace those that fail, as long as there is demand. Maybe opening a movie theater is the next small business opportunity of 2021. Maybe movie theaters are going the way of the video store and roller rink.
Sure! It was Covid (Score:3)
Must be Covid. Couldn't be that:
- I have to pay a ridiculous sum of money to watch a movie with 100 of my closest, worst behaved friends.
- If I want refreshments during the show, I have to pay usury prices for a metric tonne of crap products
- If I want said refreshments, I can't pause the movie to go get them or even use the rest room
- All the movies are either forgettable comic book eye candy or leftist, SJW trash that I won't bother watching when they come out for free on Amazon Prime.
- Amazon Prime is a thing.
No. It must be Covid.
Going to a theater is a novelty thing nowadays. If I'm going to do that, I want either a live play, or a drive-in (nostalgia when I went with the family to see "Blazing Saddles" as a child).
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments forcing them to close their businesses for months has nothing to do with the free market.
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Funny)
Because they didn't want to see Covid, the Sequel.
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, even because it was for a temporary greater good. Having the government to close you down for noble reasons. Is against free market, and the government probably should try to help many of these companies that they said must be closed, to open up again.
I know the news media wants you to think Free Market, and government regulation are opposites. While the truth is, they are needed in the proper balance.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The numbers in the summary indicate that Covid actually has little to do with AMC's problems.
Their Q1 revenue fell from $1.2B to $941M. That is a deficit of $260M.
Yet their Q1 losses were $2.1B.
So Covid only accounts for 12% of their losses.
Of course, this may be a case of journalistic incompetence, but if the summary is correct, AMC is not a viable business with or without Covid.
Not Necessarily. (Score:3)
Not necessarily, Q1 is probably the worst quarter for a theater chain, the holidays are over and the summer block busters don't start coming out until the next quarter. It wouldn't surprise me at all if theaters typically operated at a loss during Q1.
After that a quick google search seems to suggest that AMC was doing reasonably well before all of this https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] with pretty strong growth during the last 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Showing your fascist revolutionary colors, eh Rooster? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That is so far away from how it works, if nerddom was a club, I'd demand you hand over your membership card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they didn't want to see Covid, the Sequel.
Why?
The actual effects of Covid-19 has been barely a fraction of what we where told to expect. The main problem from Covid-19 (over other viruses running around) is it's tendency to empty residential elderly care homes and we know how to prevent it from running amuck among our elderly, don't let the sick in the doors. Even in NY, were the models predicted a nightmare scenario, with +40K ventilators and triple that in hospital space, we barely surpassed the existing supply of both. Remember that hospital
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the shutdowns you're whining about. Without them, the whole country would have been the mess that is NYC. Before the national guard got called out to put down peaceful protestors, it would have been called out to haul bodies away on trucks as they piled up too fast for hospitals and mortuaries to deal with them. It happened in Italy:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/... [foxnews.com]
Comparable cities that took this seriously, early have not just thousands fewer deaths, but thousands of *times* less deaths.
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden says that's not correct.
They didn't "shut down" for Covid-19 but kept working and took the same general steps we are doing now, mask wearing, hand washing, screening and such. Yea they had folks get sick and die, but within the industrialized world they did rather well. They took the approach of just slowing down the transmission using the same things we are doing now and didn't overrun their medical system.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/new... [webmd.com]
The difference between them and us is what? They are mo
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather well? They are the worst country in terms of deaths in their comparable latitude (the virus hit the Nordic countries long after the rest of Europe). They have significantly (not just a few, but a metric fuckton) more deaths than countries who undertook a lockdown - post lockdown. That last part is key. If you want to say UK is worse, no shit they screwed up their policies badly! If you want to say Belgium, Italy and France a worse, no shit they registered the largest deaths and infection rate before the term social distancing first hit a news paper let alone a policy document.
And now Sweden holds the crown as the only country in Europe whose death rate has not come down. It just went up and stayed up. So while its most comparable countries not only registered 1/3rd of the deaths, they have also largely stopped the spread the death the pandemic has caused, unlike Sweden who today logged the same number of daily new cases as they did TWO MONTHS AGO. By comparison Finland is down to 10%, Denmark 9%, Norway at 3%, and even Germany which was hit hard is down to below 5% of their early April figures (to say nothing of Germany's actual peak).
So no, Sweden does not say that's not correct. Sweden would only say that's correct if you're some psychopath out to kill as much of your population as possible and supporting the Sweden approach puts you firmly in good company of exploitative CEOs and sociopaths who care more about the almighty dollar than the lives of your friends or family.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments forcing them to close their businesses for months has nothing to do with the free market.
Technically, it has. The free market is a lottery which lets lucky companies prosper. The core feature of the free market is that when times get tough, companies to to the wall if they happened not to have enough reserves to see them through. The surviving companies then are a step or two closer to the ideal (ideal for the company, that is) state in a free market - a monopoly where they can erect barriers to entry, free of regulatory interference because Adam Smith was a naive fool. Quality generally has no
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point that "a market closed by law is, pretty much by definition, not free."
For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting we bail out the movie theaters, taxi companies, etc. I'm only pointing out that your suggestion that this is the free market at work is mindbogglingly at odds with reality. If things were not closed by law and people just decided not to go to the movies? THAT would be an example of a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. While a theater chain doesn't rise to the level of, say, a meat processing company or a steel manufacturer, a significant amount of market activity arises from the film business. The loss of a major theater chain will have significant impacts on the film industry, which, while largely centered in southern California, produces films all over the United States.
So to pretend that just letting a market that is essentially in a panic kill of major players is some sort of a functional market doing it's j
Re: (Score:2)
I for one wouldn't mind California being knocked down a few pegs. Too many from there act as if their little slice of the Union is more important than the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this aspect: all of these companies going bankrupt are what makes up everyone's retirement and pension funds.
Re: (Score:2)
In truth, they are more important. The GDP of California is larger than that of most of the Red states combined, and their taxes prop up almost all of those states (Texas and Florida being the obvious exceptions).
Re: (Score:2)
The sixth largest economy on the planet going bankrupt would have national and global implications of a monumental nature. This is what I most detest about certain factions of modern Conservatism, that it isn't conservatism at all, it's basically nihilism, about settling imaginary scores.
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. Universal has already said they plan to continue releasing direct to streaming even when COVID is a thing of the past. AMC "retaliated" by saying they would no longer screen Universal films (link [theverge.com]).
I put retaliated in quotes since it's more sour grapes than a real threat given that Universal apparently already decided AMC is irrelevant to their future success.
More and more, "the big screen" is a big LCD TV you bought from Amazon.
That's the REAL reason AMC is in trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's still the free market in action. For years, in the free market, AMC had the opportunity to build up reserves, and instead chose to pay dividends to stockholders. Now, times are tough because of circumstances beyond their control, and they're unable to cope. That's the way the market is supposed to work, by punishing companies that let their reserves get too low and their debts get too high, and thus are unfit to survive a crisis. We've just seen too many years of that not happening for people
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty more distributors out there including streaming services. AMC is already at war with Universal after the latter announced that they would continue to release direct to streaming alongside theaters after the COVID crisis passed.
AMC "retaliated" by saying they will no longer screen Universal films, making themselves irrelevant to the discussion.
This is a case of the market deciding that a middleman is just too damned inefficient to live. COVID may have precipitated the crisis, but it's been b
Re: (Score:2)
So a single data point (1 quarter's sales) is enough to draw conclusions from here? I don't think so, companies have all sorta of very healthy reasons that they might run a temporary deficit for.
Furthermore, a quick google search to find actual data rather than engaging in conjecture shows that AMC's attendance and revenue stream have been doing extremely well the last few years https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]. , https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's still the free market in action. For years, in the free market, AMC had the opportunity to build up reserves, and instead chose to pay dividends to stockholders.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
the company also announced a $200 million share buyback
Let 'em drown.
Re: Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For years, in the free market, AMC had the opportunity to build up reserves, and instead chose to pay dividends to stockholders.
Almost NO company can survive a full shutdown for months on end.
Re: (Score:3)
A full shutdown where they don't have to pay employees and can often skip out on their rent payments? What kind of companies are we talking about here?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's still the free market in action. For years, in the free market, AMC had the opportunity to build up reserves, and instead chose to pay dividends to stockholders.
I hear what you're saying, that they could have saved more. It's similar to how in a famine, the beings which grew more fat tend to survive and we think that's a perfectly reasonable example of natural selection.
I don't think that's what most people think of when they hear "free market". By that definition, you could argue that bribing legislators for legal monopolies and bailouts is a perfectly reasonable part of a free market. After all, the company is just trying to survive as efficiently as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what else would be an example of the free market working? Letting everyone die and then closing all the businesses because there are no customers or staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Free market means without government interference. Theaters have been shut down by government, which is government interference. Which may well be justified, but it isn't 'free market'.
In AMC's case it is pretty cut and dry. They had revenue, then they were shut down through no fault of their own and not due to a durable market trend, and now they do not. Unlike some industries they were not deemed essential nor did they have anything to offer in terms of pivoting to do something relevant to helping with pa
Re: (Score:2)
No, free market means free to compete with your competition. Governments can step in with all sorts of regulation to make it an equal playground for companies to compete in. When one becomes a monopoly, government can legally step in and make adjustments as needed to restore competition.
In the pandemic case, government shut down all theatres so there is no one to compete against. It is still a fair playground for all the competitors since none of them are
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate charters are themselves "government interference". That's right, without "government interference" there would BE no AMC theaters. At least not in the form it currently exists.
Spot on (Score:2)
Their risk analysis matrix should include low probability but high consequence events.
Re: (Score:2)
The quants that suggested that before the 2008 crisis were sent packing.
Re:Have they bribed their representatives? (Score:5, Informative)
Adam Smith was no fool. It's just that a lot of people following him claiming to be Capitalists have been studiously ignoring his good advice for years. Smith advised that corporate charters must be handed out exceedingly sparingly and that when a charter is granted, the corporation must be held closely to it and kept on a tight leash. He advised that charters should be contingent on being for the public good and that they be enforced vigorously. He also advised that the market must be carefully regulated to keep the playing field level and competition strong.
If we actually followed the good advice Smith gave, much of the financial sector would be shut down and most businesses would be small partnerships and sole proprietorships. Few individuals would have need or reason to deal with corporations.
An example for the discussion at hand, if you wanted to go see a movie you might go to Jim's movie house. Jim might have a voluntary relationship with AMC and a couple others. He might also get movies directly from a few studios.
Don't fall for conservatives claiming to be capitalists. They're mostly mercantilists or corporatists.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments forcing them to close their businesses for months has nothing to do with the free market.
My state opened. Still, no one is going to theaters. Why?
First, they don't have any money for such luxuries.
Second, many are concerned about infection. There is very little testing available and we have a bunch of people who have done nothing to help like wear masks, social distancing, insisting on gathering - such as churches - and other stupid shit - because "FREEDOM"!
When I look at S. Korea, New Zealand, Norway and even Germany, I see competent leadership that prevented many deaths - I wish we in th
Re: (Score:3)
I wish we in the US would vote for leadership like Angela Merkel.
We had the chance to throw in with German leadership, but it was 80 years ago...
(I kid, I kid...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey I'm cool with that! I was forced to stay home too! But my lazy ass was told to still pay all my bills from my savings. So....
And do understand, I get it. I am not the world and other States actually did help their citizens, so bully for them. So, how about we tally up all the help that was given to people, make a percentage, then bail them out that percentage? I think that's a fine compromise. Don't prop them up 100% but don't just turn your back on them. I think there's room to give a little.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative is, they stay open, their customers and staff all get sick at once, nobody can work, all the customers are afraid to do business with them, the recovery takes five times as long. Look at the data from the last big pandemic in 1918-1920. The counties in the US that stayed closed longer recovered quicker economically.
And the answer is not a bailout. We mere tax payers are told all the time about how we should have savings for a rainy day. But when companies get a little extra, they just give i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the government had given just advice, you'd still see the same effect, customers would stay away from crowds. That is, those who realize the virus is real and not just a hoax. Then again, movie theaters have been declining given the rise of larger screen TVs and almost-affordable streaming prices (a matinee is still cheaper than fandangoNOW if you avoid the popcorn). Movie prices are ridiculous, you don't just casually decide you're going to take the family to the movies to see whatever happens to be
Re: (Score:2)
Movie prices are ridiculous, you don't just casually decide you're going to take the family to the movies to see whatever happens to be playing that day, which used to be common
Everybody thinks that, but it's actually not true.
While the average ticket price hit $8.97, it remained below the cost of an average ticket in 1977 when adjusted for inflation. Back then, a ticket cost $2.23, the equivalent of $9.40 in today's currency.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/average-price-a-movie-ticket-soars-897-2017-1075458
A family of four eating out costs way more than going to the movies, but people do THAT on a whim if they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing $14, but it's a bit more expensive area. But even in a small town it's $11 with matinees at $8.50.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in my area, most people were already voluntarily sheltering in place before government ordered anything. Many businesses had already altered operations or just closed for the duration. Most restaurants had already gone to takeout only.
The last thing the theater industry wanted was a news report talking about dozens of movie goers coming down with COVID. Meanwhile, the studios deciding to release direct to streaming is only tangentially related to government action. Most studios did the math and fou
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure if they bribe, I mean generously donate to the campaign of their US congressional and senate representatives, they can get some of our tax dollars as a bailout.
AMC is china owned. USA should *not* give them a solitary penny in help.
Need money? Go ask your daddy, the Wanda Group. Chinese conglomerate. Or, y'know, improve your pathetic rooms, fix your torn, stained screens and broken sound. Hire some security to keep the ghetto riff-raff away. Oh you can't? Too bad, so sad.
Fuck you AMC. You're irrelevant. Die in a fire, and I will roast marshmallows over your hot coals. Fuck off and die.
AMC hasn't seen a penny of mine in well over a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember I had my first job in high school was at AMC. I think it was $5.30 an hour. Not a ton of fun, but actually not the worst job I've had. Rents were low enough at the time that I could have lived off it. Taking the significant other to see a free show, grab titty, sneak around the back areas to smoke a very poorly rolled joint... it was a good summer.
AMC going down is just another sign those days are ending. Really the coronavirus has just fast-tracked all the trends we were already seeing.
Change the rules so they don't give up 99% of gate (Score:2)
Change the rules so they don't give up 99% of the gate to the studios
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they sent their bribe earlier, perhaps they could have got themselves labeled an "essential" business like the meat packing plants and pot dispencaries did.
Re: (Score:3)
I would still enjoy going to the Movies vs staying at home. There is value in the movie experience vs watching the same show at home.
Sometimes the enjoyment of something is better when shared. When you watch something funny and everyone else laughs it is, it suddenly becomes more funny. Or when the bad guy gets his comeuppance and the crowd cheers you feel that excitement much more.
As much as we like to think of yourselves as having free will and not influenced by others, the truth of the matter we are.
Re: (Score:2)
For one, dear my Euro friend, most Americans don't live in little apartments. You may have been misled by observing the lives of relatively few unlucky Americans who happen to live in the few big cities with lots of high rise buildings, like NYC, SF, Chicago, and so on. But in reality, most Americans live in suburban or rural settings. They live in houses, not apartments. They have own parking for about four guest cars, and a garage for two cars. They have a frontyard and a backyard, enough space for three
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. However the higher level positions you are dealt with more abstract and complex problems. The voting public wants to hear a simple answer from you. as well you are only one person is a million so your best interests are 1/1,000,000 th of their concern.
So normal politicians (and I am not talking about the Orange Party (You know, the Reds who are Yellow) and its allies) are honestly trying to work for their best interests. What often happens is they tell you the simple answer and implement
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any flaw in that logic at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Makeout? Weak. 3rd base or bust.