The closure of Pacific Theaters raises questions about the future of the Cinerama Dome

ArcLight Hollywood workers have been on leave for over a year and eagerly await the site’s reopening. On Monday they received a message that the theater would remain permanently closed.

“It’s just sad,” said one of the staff, who asked not to be identified. “We’re just waiting for more details.”

Just like everyone else.

Pacific Theaters announced it would permanently close all of its ArcLight and Pacific locations, including a dozen theaters in Southern California and a handful in Boston, Chicago and near Washington, DC. what could happen to the theaters.

The announcement sparked a torrent of grief on social media as movie buffs took to Facebook and Twitter to share memories of visiting various ArcLight or Pacific locations over the years, often tweeting photos to commemorate the events. On Tuesday, a fan even left a bunch of flowers in front of ArcLight’s Hollywood location as if to acknowledge the end of an era.

The move also surprised studio directors and rivals in the exhibition space, in part because it left so many unanswered questions. Some wondered why ArcLight and Pacific wouldn’t file for bankruptcy, echoing Studio Movie Grill and Alamo Drafthouse, both of which use Chapter 11 as a way to take control of their debt.

ArcLight’s Hollywood theater – with its Cinerama Dome – is considered the biggest prize and would attract the most interest from potential buyers if it’s actually on the market.

There are some rumors that Christopher Forman, president of the Decurion, the theaters’ parent company, could continue to operate that venue. In that scenario, he could enlist other investors or reposition it to become even more of a Hollywood-centric institution than it already is. The cinema is currently home to many Q & As from filmmakers and special screenings for Oscars and award-pickers, and the thought is that this could remain a viable business.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Should the Forman family choose to sell the theater, there are a number of potential buyers. Most companies have yet to be contacted about a sale. On Twitter, there was widespread optimism that Netflix would rush in and buy the theater, a bailout similar to the decision to buy the Paris Theater in New York City or the Egyptian in Los Angeles.

It’s unclear whether the ArcLight would be an equally attractive target for the streamer or whether its upkeep and maintenance would be too cumbersome and far from its core business of selling monthly subscriptions. That could leave another deep-pocketed cinephile as a possible savior like Charles Cohen, who has picked up the Quad and the Landmark chain in recent years. Buyers looking to interest institutional investors may face headwinds as the financial markets are unlikely to provide capital to a company as uncertain as a pandemic-era exhibition.

There is a lot of skepticism among industry insiders that a major chain such as a Regal / Cineworld or AMC would be interested in the Hollywood location. Those companies are struggling to remain solvent and do not have the money to buy new locations. Cinemark has a cleaner balance, but it also may not want to expand itself too much until the box office returns, something studios privately think won’t happen until late summer or fall. A takeover by one of the major circuits could also raise concerns about antitrust laws.

Another possibility is that the Alamo Drafthouse could play a play for the venue when it returns from bankruptcy. As part of the filing, the theater chain acquired new equity investments from Altamont Capital Partners and Fortress Investment Group affiliates, and in a recent interview with Variety, Alamo’s founder Tim League said the exhibitor wanted to continue to increase its footprint.

ArcLight had several locations that underperformed before the pandemic brought the cinema to a halt, including the Boston and Santa Monica locations.

Christopher Forman’s grandfather, William Forman, founded the company as a chain of drive-ins in 1946. He built the Cinerama Dome in 1963, in what was the first of a chain of low-cost geodesic theaters. The family is seen as civic, with deep ties to the city of Los Angeles. The Formans were widely respected for the calm way they conducted their business and their dedication to philanthropy.

But there have been tensions in the past. William Forman’s heir, Michael, proposed redeveloping the dome in the late 1990s, sparking backlash from curators and film buffs. The dome was eventually declared a historical monument for the entire city, meaning that any change must be reviewed by the city council.

Any move to change or repurpose it now would likely face similar opposition.

“We’ve heard a lot of people really love and enjoy watching the Cinerama Dome movies,” said Linda Dishman, president and CEO of the LA Conservancy. “In fact, if Pacific Theaters chooses to stop operating as a theater, hopefully there will be a buyer who chooses to continue showing movies at the Cinerama Dome.”

Robert P. Silverstein, a land use attorney who has fought many battles in Hollywood, also said he hoped the dome would continue to show movies.

“The Cinerama is a major star in Hollywood’s architectural pantheon,” said Silverstein. “With Hollywood history under constant attack from irresponsible developers and politicians, it is all the more important to preserve the theater as a functioning venue.”

Doug Haines, who headed the Friends of Cinerama in the 1990s, said he assumed the site would be handed over to a new operator.

“It’s actually probably the most successful exhibition venue in Los Angeles,” he said. “It was in high demand before the pandemic. I doubt that would change, but who knows. You never know in Hollywood. “

Pacific Theaters owns the Hollywood real estate, but leases other locations. Over the past year, the company filed a lawsuit with two of its landlords, in Culver City and Santa Monica, over unpaid rent. In the Culver City case, the company argued that a local pandemic closure injunction meant that the landlord could not enforce the terms of the lease. Both cases are ongoing.

Source