MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

PRESS RELEASE – AMC To Shutter The First Megaplex, 1995-2010

Picture 187.png
AMC Entertainment(R) Elects Not To Exercise Lease Extension for AMC the Grand 24 in Dallas
Kansas City, Mo. (May 27, 2010) – AMC Entertainment Inc. (AMC), one of the world’s largest theatrical exhibition and entertainment companies, announces today that its wholly owned subsidiary, American Multi-Cinema, Inc., will not exercise its option to extend the lease for AMC The Grand 24, currently held by EPT Down REIT II Inc., a subsidiary of Entertainment Properties Trust (EPT).
This marks the end of an era, as AMC The Grand 24 was the first megaplex – a theatre with 14 auditoriums or more and stadium seating – ever built in the United States in 1995.
“It’s disappointing that we have not come to terms on a historical, and to us, a somewhat sentimental property,” said Gerry Lopez, AMC’s chief executive officer and president. “But in our opinion, the proposal advanced by EPT is simply untenable. We continue to negotiate with EPT on several other properties and will see where those discussions take us.”
The EPT lease contains a notice deadline of May 31, 2010 to exercise its renewal option. Because AMC elected not to exercise its option to renew the lease, it will now expire on Nov. 30, 2010. AMC will vacate the premises and remove its equipment prior to this date.
“Throughout the past 15 years at AMC The Grand 24, we made history and developed many friends in the community” said Mark McDonald, AMC’s executive vice president of global development. “We will miss them.”
About AMC Entertainment Inc.
Headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., AMC Entertainment Inc. is one of the world’s largest theatrical exhibition and entertainment companies. With a history of industry leadership and innovation dating back to 1920, the company today serves hundreds of millions of guests annually through interests in 380 theatres with 5,325 screens in five countries. www.amctheatres.com
Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the “Safe Harbor” Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
Statements in this release that are not historical facts or information are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “estimate,” “project,” “forecast,” “plan,” “believe,” “may,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “planned,” “potential,” “can,” “expectation” and similar expressions, or the negative of those expressions, may identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on management’s reasonable current assumptions and expectations. Such forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause the actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievement of AMC to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, and there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from management’s expectations.

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “PRESS RELEASE – AMC To Shutter The First Megaplex, 1995-2010”

  1. samguy says:

    Bullcrap. Who can honestly feel sentimental about stadium unless there’s something really wonderful about the place’s design such as Pacific’s The Grove here in L.A. AMC’s Century City multiplex? Eh. Tear it down when it’s time for another one just like the old one.
    We ain’t talkin’ the old Penn Station you know!

  2. Geoff says:

    Wow, strange coincidence here: I actually went to this movie theater on the first weekend it opened in May 1995.
    At the time, I had family living nearby in Plano and I was there for the weekend for my cousin’s bar-mitzvah. Die Hard With a Vengeance was the big debut, that weekend, which is where I saw it – the first time I went to a stadium theater. It definitely seemed a step up from your typical “multiplex” at the time – there even an art-house wing from what I remember that I think had some smaller Hugh Grant film and some foreign film. The whole experience was quite cool, surprised to hear that any of these theaters are shutting down.

  3. christian says:

    I saw MARS ATTACKS, AUSTIN POWERS, BIG LEBOWSKI, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY there when I was living in Plano…I do have some nostalgia for the ol’ AMC…

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon