By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

Fandango Adds 3,000 Movie Screens to its Network in a Newly Expanded Partnership With AMC Theatres

Posted Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 - Comments Off on Fandango Adds 3,000 Movie Screens to its Network in a Newly Expanded Partnership With AMC Theatres
Be Sociable, Share!

Fandango Consumers and AMC Theatres Guests to Benefit from Greater Convenience and Broader Selection

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 8, 2012 — Fandango and AMC Theatres® announced today they have expanded and extended their online ticketing relationship. The enhanced multi-year partnership improves the online ticketing experience for all AMC guests and enables Fandango to offer its state-of-the-art ticketing capabilities, services and conveniences to guests at an additional 3,000 AMC screens across the country.

Starting today, Fandango provides ticketing to all AMC Theatres locations throughout the United States. Previously, Fandango ticketed to less than half of AMC screens, servicing the chain’s former Loews and Kerasotes locations, which AMC acquired in recent years.

AMC’s partnership with Fandango for all of the AMC locations in the United States provides AMC guests with a consistent online ticketing experience, well-integrated into AMCTheatres.com and the AMC Stubs loyalty program.

“We are excited to deepen our relationship with AMC to deliver added convenience and value to the consumer,” said Fandango Executive Vice President and General Manager Rick Butler. “This enhancement to our service should drive increased moviegoer attendance through our popular online and mobile destinations and award-winning apps on over 100 different mobile devices.”

“Fandango provides American moviegoers with distinctive services and content that gets them excited about going to the movies,” said Elizabeth Frank, senior vice president of Strategy & Partnerships at AMC Theatres.  “Fandango will be both an important driver of business for AMC and a huge convenience for our guests.  Our goal is to make tickets to AMC Theatres readily available to our guests whenever and wherever they decide to see a movie.”

With the additional AMC screens, Fandango can now better serve the needs of moviegoers with more online and mobile ticketing choices throughout the country, including such major markets as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and Kansas City.

With relentless focus on serving the needs of moviegoers, Fandango achieved double-digit growth in 2011, marking its best-performing year in the company’s 11-year history, with record highs for Fandango in both ticket sales and online and mobile traffic growth.

About Fandango

Fandango, the nation’s leading moviegoer destination, sells tickets to nearly 20,000 screens.  Fandango entertains and informs consumers with reviews, commentary and trailers, and offers the ability to quickly select a film, plan where and when to see it, and conveniently buy tickets in advance (with Mobile Ticket redemption capability at more than 1,000 screens).  Fandango is available atwww.fandango.com, via smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices, and at 1-800-FANDANGO.  Fandango’s top-ranking movie ticketing apps, with over 21 million downloads, are available on over 100 mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone 7 and many other platforms. Film fans find us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/fandango and on Twitter @Fandango.

About AMC Theatres

AMC Theatres delivers distinctive and affordable movie-going experiences in 351 theatres with 5,083 screens across the United States and Canada.  AMC has propelled industry innovation and continues today by delivering premium sight and sound, enhanced food and beverage and diverse content.

#
#
#

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on Fandango Adds 3,000 Movie Screens to its Network in a Newly Expanded Partnership With AMC Theatres

Comments are closed.

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