Warren Theatre

[Easy180]

Anyone else getting a little concerned since they haven't done a thing yet...that sign has been up for months now w/o any activity...wonder if they are having financial problems or waiting until better movies come out : )

[Decious]

They've been doing the land preparation. They even added a couple of new streets. Don't worry, it'll be open next year.

[aintaokie]

I wonder if the hold up is with the City of Moore. Seems like it took forever to get the Moore Medical Center built. Also, I may not be correct, but the new Chamber of Commerce bldg. is about 1 year past due from when it was supposed to be built. IMO it just seems to take a long time to get a business started in Moore.

[SoonerDave]

The theater is on track. The City of Moore agreed, as I understand it, to do some rather extensive drainage and related landwork on or near the theater site. This work was necessary before actual site construction could begin.

The last time I was down there, it appeared that most if not all of that work was completed, and that quite a bit of surface land removal was underway (perhaps even some survey stakes were up, don't recall), and a construction company sign had been erected near the Warren Theater sign.

That all sounds to me like things are progressing full steam ahead.

-SoonerDave

[OSUFlounder]

From what I understand construction wasn't planned to start until the middle of the summer (ie July/August). Construction on the Lowe's site looks like it is about to take off so the Warren theaters shouldn't be far behind.

[russellc]

aintaokie, the hold up with the hospital was financial, not the city's fault.

[Bobby H]

This movie theater will be a pretty big structure, so land preparation (drainage, soil studies, etc.) is pretty necessary. Factors like subsidence can turn a large building like this into a disaster. Once the plumbing, buried electrical conduits and foundation get set the rest of the building should come together pretty quick.

Another factor which may influence when this theater opens is so-called "digital cinema."

Some theater chains, like Carmike Cinemas, are pursuing video-based projection rather aggressively. Their 8-plex in Lawton and 10-plex in Stillwater are both due to have half their screens converted to new Christie|AIX 3-chip 2000 line DLP digital projectors sometime in the next few weeks (probably early August). Those theaters will likely be the first in Oklahoma to feature digital projection. Carmike intends to have 100% of their 2500 theater screens converted to these DLP systems by the end of 2007.

"Digital cinema" is not necessarily better than 35mm film done right. I find movies that are shot on videotape (such as the new Superman movie) look inferior to those photographed on film. Still, lots of people love that "digital" buzzword and assume digital equals perfect.

The truth is film distribution companies (such as Fox, Paramount, etc.) spend a fortune on 35mm film prints. If they foot the entire bill on digital projector installations and eliminate the cost of the film prints the projectors could pay for themselves in just 4 to 5 years.

Warren Theaters hasn't jumped on the digital bandwagon yet. They may be studying the various systems out there, such as the Christie|AccessIT package or Dolby Digital Cinema (which also uses a 2K Christie system). Sony has a new system still in testing that boasts 4000 line resolution, providing quadruple the number of native pixels. Warren may be waiting for a sweet deal from a consortium of film distributors.

Whether that is a wrinkle in Warren's plans or not remains to be seen. But digital projection will start to become a really common thing over the next few years.

[SoonerDave]

Bobby,

Isn't someone George Lucas and/or Spielberg pushing the digital side pretty hard? Seems like I read somewhere that Lucas dropped his film production costs on one of the SW movies by something like a factor of 100 (like he spent under $20K shooting the footage for the movie direct to digital, where a film product would have been something just under $2M?) If he's really getting those economies of scale, it's going to be pretty hard to ignore.

Wouldn't considerations of relative picture quality inevitably narrow as the technology improves to deliver higher-resolution sensors for the cameras? That is, if conventional film and digital video are perceived to be competitively close enough now, wouldn't a second- or third- generation yet-higher resolution digital product inevitably catch or surpass film?

Isn't the CineCapri in Harkins a digital or digital-capable setup?

-SoonerDave

[Bobby H]

Currently no theaters in Oklahoma are equipped with any digital projection systems. The two Carmike locations I mentioned are the only ones in Oklahoma getting systems installed soon. But OKC and Tulsa could both see some D-Cinema installs happening at some theaters by year's end.

Steven Spielberg hasn't jumped on the digital bandwagon. He has stated he will shoot movies on film until companies like Kodak stop making it.

George Lucas is a driving force behind digital cinema. But those production cost numbers you mentioned have to be taken with a grain of salt. Many of the folks selling D-Cinema have bent the truth when comparing their product to 35mm film.

The first generation of projectors rolled out in 1999 had a mere 1280 X 1024 native pixels of detail -the same as a 17" LCD computer monitor. But the D-Cinema proponents, including George Lucas, all said it was sharper than film.

On the subject of the cameras, the newest video cameras from Panavision and Arri are still locked into HDTV levels of resolution. It will probably take several years or more before we see video imaging chips match the detail of 35mm motion picture camera negatives.

Sure, it's going to cost a bit less to shoot on video. And there's no wait for dailies. But the production gives up a higher standard of image quality in return for convenience.

Any major movie production should be shot on film. With video, you're stuck with the number of pixels in that format. 35mm is more flexible. Our current standards of HDTV won't stay set in stone. New, much higher resolution standards will develop over the years. And movies shot on film can be mastered to those formats more gracefully. Even with the current digital cinema systems, a video stream of a movie shot on film will usually look better than a movie shot on video.

[SoonerDave]

Bobby,

I'm no expert in film production, so these questions may sound dumb, so forgive in advance...

You offer that 35mm is more flexible than digital, and I don't understand that. If a production can be shot, edited, and delivered to a movie house all in one medium that eliminates things like physical distribution (reels, packaging, shipping), and you then (at the theater end) eliminate degradation from mulitple plays, it would surely seem digital is miles more flexible and cheaper than film. Or are you talking purely in terms of print quality, in that you could theoretically scan an original 35mm print into whatever the technically possible "resolution du jour" was available at a given time?

It would seem to me as almost an inevitability that the distributors are going to be almost itching to foot part of the bill for transitions to digital movie houses, because it would be a relatively short-term investment for staggering long-term gains due to decreased overhead.

Technically, while I realize there's not a precise correspondence, and there are myriad other factors to consider, can you give me an idea of what the rough equivalent "resoultion" of conventional film is (I know it has to do with crystal arrangement on the film material, but don't know the "densities" that might imply a rough comparison for resolution)? I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that the mere presence of the discussions re digital vs film means that we're already approaching a point at which you're gaining only incrementally increased detail that starts to exceed the eye's ability to discern. Granted, we're probably not there yet, but it would seem we're going to get there eventually...as an example, we already know that you won't see many 1080P home TV screens under 50" because the size of the screen makes it nearly impossible to perceive the increase in information (whether interpolated or physically present).

About five years ago (maybe a bit longer), I told a friend of mine who worked part-time as a professional photographer and in a film processing lab that digital technology was going to make his industry (chemical film processing) all but obsolete, and he thought I was nuts. Now, the lab where he worked is closed (the entire chain shut down), and he's looking at digital SLR's as a means to try and work back into a side-business of shooting weddings, etc. I realize that consumer photography isn't the same as the motion picture industry, but it seems to me a similar "revolution" is getting ready to happen...not that "digital" means "perfect," but it may mean "darned sight cheaper" and "good enough.."

Thanks for your info,
SoonerDave

[Martin]

when i read 'flexible' i didn't take it to mean for distribution per se, but for image quality.

let's say in the mid 90's you bought a digital camera and a film camera. you take a picture with each. as a result, you have the picture on film and you have it in a file that is 640 pixels across by 480 pixels tall (a common resolution to use back then)

jump forward to today. you want to take your image and make it bigger. you can scan the picture that's on film to practically whatever resolution you like... let's say 1920 pixels wide by 1200 tall and it'll still look good. if you take your 640 by 480 image and resize it to 1920 vy 1200, it'll look like garbage.

same thing with shooting movies. if you shoot it with film, you have some flexibility; shoot it digitally and you're practically stuck with the resolution of the day.

well... at least that's how i understood it? -M

[SoonerDave]

Thanks,mmm

As I reread his original message, it became clear he's talking purely about image quality, not so much the post-production side. You can gain more picture information as scanning technology and resolution progressively improves. That makes sense.

I just wonder at what scanning resolution the law of diminishing returns starts to kick in; that is, when do you hit a level of resolution that is beyond either what the picture has available to be scanned or what the eye can perceive?

-SoonerDave

[Bobby H]

You offer that 35mm is more flexible than digital, and I don't understand that.

A 4-perf 35mm motion picture camera negative can record a lot more image detail than any electronic video format in existence. Industry experts say you need at least a 4000 line scan to have something in the ballpark of 4/35 resolution. Depending on the emulsion used and quality of lenses, a 4/35 frame can yield around 24 million pixels of real detail. 1080p HDTV gives you around 2 million.

Because 35mm original camera elements are so high in resolution, and the detail in the film emulsion is organic and randomly dispersed, it is more adaptable to future video formats that will replace our current HDTV standards. It's even a higher quality choice for using as an image source in current D-Cinema movie distribution.

I have nothing against independent productions and other low budget features shooting on video. They're making due with what they have. But I think it is ridiculous for a $250 million project like Superman Returns to be videotaped rather than shot on film. Bryan Singer actually thought about shooting the movie on 65mm film, but went the complete opposite direction in choosing video. Why they blew what is effectively a TV image up to IMAX is beyond me. If they had shot on 65mm, they would have hardly had to blow up at all.

35mm release prints are another matter. Not all are created equal. Some people in New York, Los Angeles and a sprinkling of other key theaters in the country may get an "EK print" which boasts fantastic image quality. Standard high speed release prints are a step down from that. And then you have the bad theaters which give film a bad name. Poor print handling and poor projector maintenance will indeed degrade film presentations over a number of plays. But with proper handling, good equipment quality and maintenance, there's little excuse for a film print not leaving a theater in the condition in which it arrived.

Decades ago, many theaters had full time projectionists who were well trained and handled film properly. Today it's typically the theater manager or an assistant manager who starts the movie. Some do a good job at it. Others are terrible.

In short, D-Cinema is indeed better than film done wrong. But it really isn't better than film done right. It's just tricky finding those theaters which care to do the job right. D-Cinema won't solve all those problems either. Those digital systems will need constant attention and maintenance. The theaters who currently botch film presentations may possibly botch plenty of digital shows as well.

Ultimately, the switch to digital projection is indeed a cost savings move. And film distributors are indeed helping to foot the bill for the conversion. Carmike Cinemas would not be doing their circuit-wide D-Cinema install if they had to pay for the $100,000+ cost per screen bill themselves. Some movie theaters may see some real improvements in presentation quality by switching to digital. Others may actually see a small step backward.

In the long run, imaging chips in both digital still cameras and video cameras will surpass the actual image quality of film. But as you said, right now "damned sight cheaper" and "good enough" are definitely taking hold. I'm just praying those "good enough" standards don't become etched in stone and are forced to steadily improve.

[SoonerDave]

Bobby

Thanks for the education. What finally clicked for me was the description of essentially "mastering" to a 35MM print, then scanning it to whatever digital format/resolution might be available at a given point in time - presuming the scanning technology is always lower resolution than the 35 mm print itself.

Thanks,
SoonerDave

[Ronvs]

Here's what the VP of Warren Theatres had to say about the construction schedule in an e-mail dated today, July 17th, 2006:

Thanks for checking on the new Warren Theatre in Moore. As you can imagine this is a major project and some final adjustments to the construction are being made, we will be under way in a short time. We look forward to opening the finest movie theatre in the country in Moore very soon.

Ken Crockett
Corporate Vice President
Warren Theatres

[writerranger]

Bobby,

Off-topic, but still regarding theaters.....

What is the explanation for no revival houses in Oklahoma City? I would LOVE to see classic movies on the big screen. Here, it's hit and miss at the Noble Theater (OKCMOA) and something every blue moon at AMC.

I love how The Angelika locations will show indy films along with some great classics, film-noir festivals, etc.

------

[Easy180]

sounds good thanks for the info...Any idea if they will have a sports bar upstairs??...Also heard they may put the TGI Fridays inside the theater...anyone else??

[Bobby H]

Whiteranger,

I don't know why Oklahoma City doesn't have a good revival house. Perhaps the answer lies in how nearly all movie theaters in OKC are currently operated by major chains.

Outfits like Angelica Film Center and Landmark Theatres specialize in showing independent, but still current, films.

Austin, TX has a couple true revival movie theaters with the unique appeal of having very high standards on presentation quality. On occaision you can even see classic movies presented with 70mm large format film projection. That's a really big deal with a true 70mm photographed movie like Lawrence of Arabia, Baraka, Patton, or Tron is shown.

I see no reason why Oklahoma City should do without something similar. But it would likely take an independent effort to make it happen. The big theater chains won't help.

[writerranger]

Whiteranger,

I don't know why Oklahoma City doesn't have a good revival house. Perhaps the answer lies in how nearly all movie theaters in OKC are currently operated by major chains.

Outfits like Angelica Film Center and Landmark Theatres specialize in showing independent, but still current, films.

Austin, TX has a couple true revival movie theaters with the unique appeal of having very high standards on presentation quality. On occaision you can even see classic movies presented with 70mm large format film projection. That's a really big deal with a true 70mm photographed movie like Lawrence of Arabia, Baraka, Patton, or Tron is shown.

I see no reason why Oklahoma City should do without something similar. But it would likely take an independent effort to make it happen. The big theater chains won't help.

Bobby, Are there.......oh, first.....it's "writerranger" not "whiteranger"....after my posts about the gangs, I wasn't sure if that was intentional..........Are there any of the old movie theaters still "as is" in Oklahoma City? I mean the old, single-screen movie theaters that, with renovation, could be back up and running again? I can't think of any on the northside except maybe the The Plaza. Everything else, I think, has either been gutted or torn down. The Will Rogers on Western would have made the perfect indy/revival house. It would have fit perfectly as an anchor of the Western District.

----

[Bobby H]

Sorry, that was just a typo.

My opinion is if anyone wants to open a new revival house they should do the job correctly.

In doing the job correctly they have to attack the issue on two fronts: achieving top-notch presentation quality and building a very nice movie theater atmosphere.

The atmosphere thing can be approached in a number of different directions. The "retro" thing is the most obvious angle. Build a theater that seems a lot like a lush movie palace from decades in the past. Such theaters can be contemporary as well. The Madstone Theaters circuit specialized in art films and had a really nice blond hardwood art gallery-ish contemporary theme. It's too bad they didn't put any money into improving actual show quality.

Any really good revival theater should have a top notch dual gauge 35mm/70mm projector to cover everything from black and white silent film classics to big epic releases like 2001. Oklahoma! was the first movie produced in the 5-perf 70mm Todd-AO process. It's a crime our state doesn't have a good theater capable of playing that movie in 70mm.

The projectionists at such a theater would really need to know their stuff. Some 70mm prints have 6-track Dolby magnetic analog tracks, which requires quite a bit of setup to play properly. New 70mm prints of old films are now made with DTS time code. Basically these guys need to know how to handle all that stuff. Some $6 per hour popcorn jockey won't be able to handle that. The job requires expertise.

I'll be the first to applaud anyone who has the guts to launch a serious revival theater venture in Oklahoma City. But if anyone is going to bother doing it, they need to commit to doing the job right. The public won't support the place if corners are cut. And the studios may not allow rare, valuable prints to be booked there either without such a commitment to excellence.

[ETL]

So the theater wont be digital and when will I star seeing a building? How big will the screens be (bigger than the Harkins :-))?

[Easy180]

here is the description of the theater...was just getting a little anxious to see some activity


Warren Theatres is proud to announce our newest theatre is to be built in Moore Oklahoma. Here you can find an architectural rendering of what the Theatre will look like from the front, as well as an article by Jennifer Griswold of the Norman Transcript. Keep checking back, as we will continue to add more information as it comes!






Art deco style movie theater coming to Moore

By Jennifer Griswold

Transcript Staff Writer

MOORE - A movie theater company new to the state of Oklahoma has announced it will build a multi-screen facility in Moore.

Bill Warren, president of Warren Theatres, LLC, made the announcement Friday morning to a standing-room-only crowd in the Moore City Council chamber.

Around 150 people snacked on popcorn and chocolate bars and drank pops as the plan for the $30-million project was unveiled.

The theater will be built on a 25-acre site, located off the west I-35 Service Road south of the post office and hospital.

The company owns and operates three theaters in Wichita, Kan., under the Warren Theatres name. They also operate several Palace Theatres in and around Wichita and in Springfield, Mo.

A short video giving a tour of the interior of a theater was shown, touting the facility as "more than just a place to see a movie but a step back in time."

The interior has an art deco style and includes marble, granite and hand-painted murals. Theater staff are attired in uniforms with tuxedo jackets and bow ties, similar to movie employees of the '30s and '40s.

The theater will have a diner, game room, waiting room with a fireplace, and an upstairs lounge serving adult beverages. The ground floor will be more than 150,000 square feet.

The 7,000-seat complex will have 20 screens, all with waterfall curtains. The auditoriums will have stadium seating and will vary in size, from more than 700 seats in the main auditorium to around 175 seats in the smaller auditoriums.

Screens in the largest auditoriums will be more than 80 feet wide and four stories tall. The main auditorium also will have a balcony that will seat around 100 people, with at-your-seat dining and cocktail service.

Warren said ticket prices will be comparable to area theaters, $7.50 to $8. He said balcony seats will cost more, around $15. Movie-goers will be able to purchase tickets by phone, Internet and from a 24-hour ticket machine located outside the theater or at the door.

Another unique theater feature, according to Warren, is no advertising is shown on the screens.

"We are in the business to entertain you, not to sell you soap," he said.

When asked whether the theater would show independent or classic films, Warren said it was a possibility if the demand is there. He said one of his theaters in Kansas did show independent films.

Construction on the theater will begin in about five months, and it will take a year to complete, he said. Two hundred employees will be hired to staff the facility.

Moore City Manager Steve Eddy said the theater will fill a gap in the city.

"We do surveys all the time and one of the things people are always saying they are wanting is to go to a movie in Moore," he said, "the other thing is to be able to buy a two-by-four."

Councilperson Shelia Haworth said Moore residents are "starved for entertainment," and she couldn't wait for the theater to open.

Warren said he has spent more than two years deciding where to locate a theater in the Oklahoma City metro area.

"We picked Moore because we think Moore is more," he said and then joked he would be selling two-by-fours with or without butter in the concession stand.

Warren said his company's approach was to re-create the "glamour" of the movie -going experience. He hopes the theater will have "a big economic impact on Moore and will become a regional draw."












Home | Corporate Info | Contact Us | New Theatres | Promotions | Gift Certificates | Employment | Site Map

© 2000-2006 Warren Theatres LLC

[ETL]

Sounds good. Thanks! I just want it to start!

[BG918]

Curious why they wouldn't make this part of Norman's University North Park development? It seems silly to have a large outdoor mall with tons of stores and restaurants and a hotel and then you have this amazing Warren theatre 8 miles down the highway.

[jbrown84]

The Continental next to Founders Tower is sitting empty. It's not as old, but it could definitely be a retro-style revival theatre.