View Full Version : Warren Theatre



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

traxx
08-22-2006, 08:10 AM
Roger Ebert reviewed Attack of the Clones having seen it in a regular theater and said it looked murky because it was digital transfered to film but later saw it again on a digital projection system and said it looked a hundred times better, but he still prefers film done right as do I.

I read an article several months ago about a firm in Japan working on the successor to HDTV and it said (I don't remember all the specifics so don't hold me to it) that they created their camera and put it on the back of a truck and went around and shot footage. It said that it took something like 2.5 terabytes for a 20 minute video and then they showed the video at a trade show (with a projector built specifically for this) and it was so realistic that people were becoming motion sick.

I think video and digital have their uses and purposes but they are too realistic. That's what's great about film is it has an other worldly dreamy feel to it. If you look, you can find software and techniques to make digital video look like film. I think that says something about how we think about digital vs. film. Digital may be the future over film but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.

SoonerDave
08-22-2006, 10:28 AM
it's got a long way to go before it gets there

Maybe at the very high end, that's true, but in the broader market, it won't take that long.

I remember a friend of mine who worked in a commercial photo lab telling me how digital photography was a fad, that film would never go away. The lab where he worked is now out of business and he's out of the industry. Granted, that's retail photo publishing/production, and I realize that's a different breed of cat from the motion picture industry, but the migration, technological, and financial issues all resonate in much the same way.

I think making digital look like film primarily requires shooting at 24fps rather than 30, although that's probably a gross oversimplification.

I wonder if the test you read about was something like this:

http://www.freshdv.com/2005/11/super-hi-vision-tv-successor-to-hdtv.html

a 7680x4320 native image!!! Yikes!

-SoonerDave

traxx
08-22-2006, 11:39 AM
Actually here is what I was referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDV

Yes, just converting to 24 frames per second is a bit of a simplification but it is definately one of the steps. In addition you have to give it that photographic look that video doesn't provide and that's where software and/or workaround techniques come in.

As far as my statement of digital not being there yet, I guess I should have made myself a little more clear. I meant it's not there as far as quality is concerned but, yes definately from a marketing standpoint and the public view, digital is the buzzword now and many people can be sold just by using the term digital. Such was the case a few years back when dish companies were advertising 100% digital picture. A lot of people took that to mean HD in quality which it wasn't. They were sold on the buzzword of digital.

SoonerDave
08-22-2006, 12:59 PM
Traxx,

It looks you and I were looking at opposite ends of the same telescope. There was a link in the article you reference back to the article I had seen referenced in a *different* blog. Ah, the Internet...

Sure enough, it's 4x current HDTV (on both axes), from 1920x1080 to 7680x4320...the wiki article estimates a 6GB *per minute* data requirement with signals in the 21Ghz range...yikes...

Man, they *insist* making these newer hard drives seem smaller... :)

-SoonerDave

Bobby H
08-22-2006, 09:20 PM
"UHDTV", as it is being called, is NOT at all a functioning, operable system. It has never actually been fully demonstrated from a video sourced image.

Currently, NHK television in Japan and Lowry Digital Images (associated with DTS in the US) is developing the standard. They don't actually have the technology to make it work digital-in and digital-out today. If they do anything to demonstrate a 32 million pixel image, they must start with an analog film-sourced image -preferably with something shot on 65mm film.

As it stands, there are no 32 megapixel CCD or CMOS devices capable of recording full motion video. The highest resolution CMOS imagers (sold by Kodak) feature 40 million pixels but only function as "digital backs" for large format film still image cameras. They don't have fast enough exposure times to sample full motion video, much less have the bandwidth to output the stream in uncompressed or mildly compressed form.

Right now Panavision and Arri make the highest native resolution video cameras available. Both can shoot as much as 3000 RGB lines natively. But they're normally confined to the typical 2048 X 1080 pixel "2K" format (such as Superman Returns for instance). Their advantage is similar to D-SLR cameras. Those camera bodies can use 35mm motion picture camera lenses.

22.2 channels of sound? I'm skeptical it would even be used.

SDDS boasted 8-channel capability. But few theaters put up the five channels of speakers behind the screen necessary for the format. Very few films were mixed for SDDS-8. Nearly all releases these days are 5.1. Some only add a discrete 6.1 mix later in DTS format for DVD release.

DTS introduced their "XD-10" processor a couple years ago. It can support 7.1, 8.0, 10.2 or even higher sound formats -even with no data compression. But that has gone pretty unused. Most sound mixes are still 5.1 regardless.

Even if 10.2 surround or even 22.2 surround was ever widely supported, where would anyone place all those speakers? How could most people even afford that many?

The data rate of UHDTV at 3.2 terabytes per second would require one heck of a RAID system, well beyond the capacity of any normal RAID data server setup. Right now the DCI specification for 2000 line and 4000 line D-Cinema mandates a bandwidth of 150 million bits per second, but no more than 250 million bits per second. That's still several times greater than the new Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats. But way way below 3.2 TB.

Although the current 1920 X 1080 top end limit of HDTV is over a decade old, it is still pretty much cutting edge. Few people have televisions capable of displaying all those pixels. Very very few have HDTV monitors capable of showing that detail in progressive scan. It takes a really high end computer system to even capture a pretty compressed HD-quality video stream. Pick your format, whether it's HDV, HDCAM, DVCPRO-HD, etc. and you'll need a RAID setup and an expensive after market accelerator/capture card (like an AJA Kona|HS or Xena|HS) to do the job.

HDTV itself is still a high end niche thing. I would not get my hopes up in seeing UHDTV anytime in the next 10 years, if even that.

I'm just hoping standard movie theaters that embrace "digital" will go to 4K systems before too many home users consider their nearly 2K home HD setups just as good. At least film projection has some paradigm of separation in the whole numbers race of all things digital.

SoonerDave
08-23-2006, 07:11 AM
Bobby

Please understand that I am completely aware that UHDTV is barely even a lab concept. I was merely taking a mental note at the sheer volume of data implied in a resolution of that magnitude. I mean, I'm thinking in terms of that initial personal computing era, when I built on computers wherein a 20MB hard drive was high-end and high-dollar, and comparing that to how much capacity you can get for those same dollars now....but then *contrast* that against how newer applications are making the new drives "smaller" every day...

The sheer volume of data in a theoretical UHDTV concept doesn't just imply bigger drives, but orders-of-magnitude higher bandwidth data transfer systems, networks, processors, the whole bit...

-SoonerDave

traxx
08-23-2006, 10:44 AM
Bobby,

You bring up a good point about the sound mix. Enough is Enough already. I have 5.1 and that sounds great. People tend to think (and of course it's marketed that way) that more and higher numbers is always better. I have friends who always have to have the latest/greatest and went out and bought 7.1 and 9.1 setups when they came out. When faced with the question of how much those extra channels would help since most DVDs are mixed in 5.1, there was no answer. So thos extra channels just repeat information from the other channels.

xpertinfun
08-27-2006, 08:47 PM
I will try and be the first to report when (if) they break ground on this project. I am by there everyday.

We are very much looking foward to this wonderful theater.

Easy180
08-28-2006, 09:43 AM
xpert...I think there will be an accident on I-35 when we finally see some dirt being moved :kicking:

animeGhost
08-30-2006, 08:45 AM
UHDTV can wait a while we dont need TVs becoming like computers where u have to upgrade every couple yrs just to keep up with the standards

Midtowner
08-30-2006, 08:58 AM
TV manufacturers would love that.

Bobby H
08-30-2006, 09:54 AM
That's already the case with HDTV.

Many of the older existing HDTV sets, bought for very large sums of money, are incompatible with the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats. Many of the discs being sold in those two formats require digital HDMI connections to display the hi-def imagery. This is due to "5C" copy protection efforts mandated by movie studios and music publishers. If you hook the player up via analog component video cables in most cases your movie will get downsampled to mere 480p DVD quality.

Many of the early HDTVs (and most of the existing ones still) do not display the full 1920 X 1080 pixel image of 1080i or 1080p HDTV broadcasts and video streams. Most are well below that. Many of those LCD TVs you see in Wal-Mart really only support 852 X 480 native pixels. That's all.

I have held off for years on buying an expensive HDTV monitor because all the existing sets on the market don't satisfy all my demands.

I want a monitor that fully supports 1920 X 1080 imagery in full progessive scan. That ability would allow one to attach a computer monitor output to the TV set. Some HDTVs will allow one to attach a computer, but the set will display a computer desktop image nowhere near that 1920 X 1080 level. The new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats typically feature 1080p video streams. The TV set should fully support that. Virtually none of the HDTVs on the market do today, in part because of limits with the current HDMI cable connection standard.

Sony's Playstation 3 may be the thing that finally gets the television makers to get their act together. The console will feature a built-in Blu-Ray drive and the games will reportedly support full 1080p HD output. The console has some monster computer horsepower to output that data.

Anyway, those who have already bought in to HDTV will likely have to upgrade at some point.

traxx
08-30-2006, 01:02 PM
UHDTV can wait a while we dont need TVs becoming like computers where u have to upgrade every couple yrs just to keep up with the standards
It is several years off. Like 20 or so years. Afterall, HDTV began development in '68 (by the same company that's developing UHDTV) and it is still not universal. The majority of people still use a standard definition TV.

animeGhost
08-31-2006, 07:41 AM
It is several years off. Like 20 or so years. Afterall, HDTV began development in '68 (by the same company that's developing UHDTV) and it is still not universal. The majority of people still use a standard definition TV.

ur right... i got lucky with mine (got it for $250 bucks at sam's)

SoonerDave
08-31-2006, 09:35 AM
I want a monitor that fully supports 1920 X 1080 imagery in full progessive scan.

It isn't the sexy flat screen like LCD or Plasma, but the current generation of DLP's (and available at retail) do full 1080P...

-SoonerDave

Bobby H
08-31-2006, 11:34 AM
Not all DLP equipped TVs will do full "1080p" resolution. In fact, most do not. Most are merely 720p. That especially goes for many of those DLP driven plasma and LCD sets.

While a few DLP models deliver native 1920 X 1080 display, some other LCD and LCOS systems can as well. Sony's latest "SXRD" monitors are a good example.

Still, virtually none of them can show 1920 X 1080 in progressive scan -which makes that moniker the marketing people are using, "1080p", very stupid and extremely misleading.

Basically, there's nothing on the market right now I find suitable for purchase -at least for my needs. Gotta have full progressive scan at maximum HD resolution and the ability to run a computer through it at the same resolution or there just will simply be no sale.

Martin
08-31-2006, 11:45 AM
sony's second generation sxrd's which were released a few months ago are fully 1080p compliant. the first generation were advertised as 1080p since that was their native resolution, but couldn't accept a 1080p signal as input. definitely misleading.

later this month sony will release two lines of flat panel lcd which should also be fully 1080p compliant... available up to 46" in size. sometime after that, perhaps before q1 2007, they'll also be releasing some 52" lcd models...

only reason why i know this is that i've been planning on getting a flat panel tv this upcoming year and have been researching what's out there. i don't want to drop a few grand on something that's obsolete out of the box, so 1080p is a must. -M

SoonerDave
08-31-2006, 12:28 PM
That especially goes for many of those DLP driven plasma and LCD sets.

Bobby, you're going to have to help me on this one. DLP is one technology, Plasma is another, and LCD is another. My understanding is that they are all fundamentally and mutually exclusive. "DLP-driven Plasma" is a non-sequitur, isn't it?

Only the very latest versions of the DLP TV's using TI's third-generation DLP chipset will do true 1080p, but they are out there. Samsung, as an example, sells a series of their newer DLP sets that will accept 1080p input through component inputs or HDMI.

LCOS is one of those on-again/off-again technologies that's too risky, IMHO, to spend big $$ on. Vendors jumped on that bandwagon, and almost as quickly jumped off. My understanding is that the follow-on generation of DLP's will use LED's for their light source rather than the color wheel, which should improve their picture/color quality even further.

I have a 32" 720P/1080i LCD in our bedroom, and while it's very nice, I just don't think I could sanction it out to 50"+ for a main TV replacement when my trusty old conventional Mitsu 50" bites the dust. LCD response times are still such that there's too much artifacting (is that a word?) on high-movement sequences.

I do think, however, that 1080p is a bit overhyped. There's certainly no broadcast standard for it, and for that matter there's a point of diminishing marginal returns in terms of the value of 1080p on anything smaller than, say, about 50" or so screen. In other words, you'll be hard-pressed to notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p on a screen much below that size...

-SoonerDave

Bobby H
08-31-2006, 12:39 PM
DLP is an imaging chip, not a screen illumination technology. DLP chips can be found in plasma TVs, LCD TVs and rear projection TVs.

Sony's Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) SXRD televisions come in a variety of rear projection, LCD and plasma illumination.

JVC's D|ILA chips are another competing imager technology.

Sony is under considerable pressure to move their sets into full 1080p compliance due to Playstation 3 and its capability of outputting 1920 X 1080 in progressive scan. Hopefully that capability will also equate to making it possible to attach computers and have them run at that top resolution as well. That would make something like a Windows Media Center PC finally make sense to have.


I do think, however, that 1080p is a bit overhyped. There's certainly no broadcast standard for it, and for that matter there's a point of diminishing marginal returns in terms of the value of 1080p on anything smaller than, say, about 50" or so screen. In other words, you'll be hard-pressed to notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p on a screen much below that size...

It's very easy to tell the difference from a 1280 X 720 pixel image versus that of a 1920 X 1080 image.

Sure, there's no 1080p broadcast standard. But pick up any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and you'll find the video stream encoded for full 1080p 1920 X 1080 levels.

When it comes to making a HDTV set double as a computer monitor, there is no such thing as too many pixels. If you have an application like Adobe After Effects 7 you need all the pixel real estate you can get. I will not stomach doing graphics work at anything under 1600 X 1200. It's counterproductive to work at levels like 1024 X 768 or even 1280 X 1024. My notebook runs at 1680 X 1050. That's as low as I can tolerate.

SoonerDave
08-31-2006, 01:26 PM
It's very easy to tell the difference from a 1280 X 720 pixel image versus that of a 1920 X 1080 image.

Which is why I was stating there's little truly perceptible difference in going from *1080i* to 1080p on screens much *smaller than 50"*. If there were, vendors would be tripping over themselves to provide it at every screen size, but, they're not. That's why you see 1080p *generally* in the 50" vicinity, but not much smaller. It will likely backfill into the smaller sizes as implementation costs drop over time.


But pick up any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and you'll find the video stream encoded for full 1080p 1920 X 1080 levels.

For those willing to plunk down $700 for Toshiba's HD-DVD player and repurchase remastered movies at $50+, that's relevant. For now, while yet another format war rages yet again (and this time one Sony has bet the company on) I'll hedge my bets and save my money while 1080p exists as a niche market within a niche market. A TV that doesn't support it natively right now is hardly obsolete out of the box, which someone else suggested. This is not at all to say 1080p isn't a nice to have, but it's going too far to say it is compulsory IMHO.

-SoonerDave

Martin
08-31-2006, 01:44 PM
actually, a still from 1080i would look identical to one from 1080p. same number of pixels and all. the difference is in frame rate. the interlaced picture will have half the potential frame rate of the progressive one. if there's not much movement on-screen the quality difference isn't much... if there's lot's of action, however, that's where you'd be able to tell.

as for dlp, while it is a chip, i'm under the impression that it's used only when the image is projected onto a surface... ergo dlp chips are in projection tv's and digital projectors and NOT in plasma or lcd displays. -M

SoonerDave
08-31-2006, 02:24 PM
a still from 1080i would look identical to one from 1080p.

Hmmm...good point, but wouldn't you have to normalize the two to a common number of fields? To get an entire picture at 1080i you need two fields, but 1080p you only need one. A single-field in 1080i is only going to get you 540 lines, I think...


as for dlp, while it is a chip, i'm under the impression....

That's what I thought, too. mmm. I can't even conceive of how you would make a DLP Plasma, kinda like making a sonic laser?

-SoonerDave

Martin
08-31-2006, 05:24 PM
hmmm...good point, but wouldn't you have to normalize the two to a common number of fields? To get an entire picture at 1080i you need two fields, but 1080p you only need one. A single-field in 1080i is only going to get you 540 lines, I think...yes, exactly my point. with 1080p you get one full picture per field while with 1080i you get 1/2 of the picture per field. in 1080i, most digital televisions take the two fields, merge them and then display the complete image frame. so if you're running at 60 fields per second, you're getting 60 frames per second in 1080p but only 30 frames per second with 1080i. -M

traxx
10-17-2006, 10:48 AM
I'm realllly starting to doubt if this theater will ever happen.

Easy180
10-17-2006, 11:15 AM
Was just thinking the same thing as Lowes is almost done already...Have a feeling I will drive by one night and the Theatre sign has somehow disappeared

Centerback
10-17-2006, 11:57 AM
I am told by an "inside source" that this project IS going to happen, it is just a matter of time. They are hoping to begin later this year or early next year. In reality, the finished product is probably a year away.

Intrepid
10-17-2006, 01:10 PM
There was recent print version of Moore Spotlight that said the theater was going to be a 14 screen not a 20 screen. However, the sign on Telephone Rd. in Moore still indicates a 20-plex.

Anyone heard anything for sure about the number of screens? I think remember someone mentioning it in the past.

xpertinfun
10-17-2006, 02:51 PM
There was recent print version of Moore Spotlight that said the theater was going to be a 14 screen not a 20 screen. However, the sign on Telephone Rd. in Moore still indicates a 20-plex.

Anyone heard anything for sure about the number of screens? I think remember someone mentioning it in the past.

From what I read somewhere is that they went over budget, So they had to downsize it a little and redo the bluprints......I thought it only affect the lobby though, Maybe they had to reduce the amount of screens as well.

SoonerDave
10-18-2006, 08:07 AM
A 30% reduction in screens might provide a pretty close match to what I think was something right at a 40-50% estimate over budget.

Makes me wonder if that cost problem has anything to do with the recent acquisition of the Regal at Crossroads by AMC...??

-SoonerDave

Bobby H
10-18-2006, 10:20 AM
There's a number of variables that may have put the project over budget.

Interest rates have risen quite a bit over the past couple years. Commercial building projects like this are funded in bits and chunks with borrowed money. It's now quite a lot more expensive to borrow money.

Construction and materials prices have risen a great deal. The cost of putting up the building and even making the parking lot is much more expensive than it was a couple years ago.

Then there's Digital Cinema. Warren Theatres hasn't taken the plunge on digital projection, but may be forced to do so pretty soon. The systems are pretty expensive, but if they can ink the right kind of deal movie studios may shoulder much of the hardware cost. Carmike Cinemas made such a deal.


Makes me wonder if that cost problem has anything to do with the recent acquisition of the Regal at Crossroads by AMC...??

Those situations are probably not related. Movie theater chains buy existing theaters and sell off others all the time.

AMC Theatres recently aquired the large Loews/Cineplex theater chain. The US Dept. of Justice has forced AMC to sell off some existing Loews and Cineplex Odeon locations to settle some anti-trust situations. I think Regal bought up some of those theaters and then perhaps sold the Crossroads Mall theater (and possibly others in different markets) to AMC in order to lower their own operational costs.

Even if the Warren Theater is built as a 14-plex I think it will still be a more compelling draw to audiences than other area theaters. The point with building a good multiplex is not having the most screens. The goal is to really have the best quality theaters. Warren is farther along on that track than just about any other theater chain in the country.

traxx
10-18-2006, 01:44 PM
I am told by an "inside source" that this project IS going to happen, it is just a matter of time. They are hoping to begin later this year or early next year. In reality, the finished product is probably a year away.

Time? How much time? The sign has been up for it for probably a year now. And later on this year? There's only two months left in the year. I wonder if the insider source is being fed a line.

xpertinfun
10-18-2006, 06:51 PM
All of those tractors across the street had me all gitty until I realized they are probably from the Lowes project just waiting to be picked up by a tractor trailer.

I also noticed they are moving some dirt directly across the street from the Warren site...Maybe just making a street to the new Lowes?

Also wondering what they are going to do with that HUGE ditch right next to the Lowes....Some kind of drainage ditch I suppose, But its giant!:doh:

OSUFlounder
10-19-2006, 11:02 AM
I keep wondering when they will start as well - first it was in the fall, after the road construction on Telephone was finished. Then the spring, then late summer... and now the end of the year. I understand that they have had problems with the site, but people are starting to doubt if they will come at all.
As for Lowe's, I understand why they would face the highway but it seems to me, given the bad state of the access road that they should have put the back of the store towards the back of the walmart and had the front facing the hospital. At least I wouldn't be staring at the back of the building every time I go down Telephone.

Spartan
10-19-2006, 01:55 PM
They have already spent a few million on site work. They won't back out now.

traxx
10-27-2006, 03:28 PM
A few million on site work? Either I'm dumb or blind. I drove by yesterday and the only thing I see that they've done to the site is put up the Warren Theater sign that's been there for over a year now.

Easy180
10-27-2006, 09:11 PM
traxx...Now you know that sign put them back at least a couple hundred bucks

Won't be surprised if their next excuse is they don't want to start construction right before the winter weather begins

Whatever it is...It is extremely apparent they are in no rush to get this theater open

MrZ
10-28-2006, 05:43 PM
I noticed the Key Construction signs were pulled down in the last few days and one of the 2 trailers with their logo is gone. Maybe a different construction company is doing the work now.
Did anyone ever find out if the city actually paid for any of the work to prepare the site? If so it would be nice if they at least could get an answer besides the canned reply that Warren keeps giving.
This situation is starting to go beyond ridiculous.

Spartan
10-29-2006, 06:47 PM
Agreed. There was lots of site work done. It used to be a thicket of woods, had to be cleared, flattened...guess that's expensive. I know a lot more about urban infill than suburban big-boxes...

xpertinfun
10-29-2006, 06:56 PM
Oh my....I noticed the KEY construction signs were taken down now as well...Of course it cant be to good for business having your name attached to a construction project that was supposed to start 2 yrs ago, So who can blame them?

The bad part is that they did their construction on the one in Wichita, So this may not be such a good thing. I say the Warren Theatre signs come down within 2 weeks time....Anyone wanna bet?:closed:

That Sux.

Spartan
10-29-2006, 06:58 PM
I would not be taking you up on your bet...

It's too premature to tell. Katrina set this back. They're waiting for construction costs to come back down, or they will downsize their plans. That's what I've been told.

Intrepid
10-29-2006, 06:59 PM
Oh my....I noticed the KEY construction signs were taken down now as well...Of course it cant be to good for business having your name attached to a construction project that was supposed to start 2 yrs ago, So who can blame them?

The bad part is that they did their construction on the one in Wichita, So this may not be such a good thing. I say the Warren Theatre signs come down within 2 weeks time....Anyone wanna bet?:closed:

That Sux.

Was driving down Telephone Rd in Moore earlier this evening and noticed the Warren Theatre sign(with the 20-plex verbage) was still there as was one of the Key Construction trailers.

Maybe they could only afford one sign and trailer?? lol

:tiphat:

Intrepid
10-29-2006, 07:02 PM
I would not be taking you up on your bet...

It's too premature to tell. Katrina set this back. They're waiting for construction costs to come back down, or they will downsize their plans. That's what I've been told.

This downsizing rumor coincides with what others have reported and coincides with what was printed in the first edition of the "Moore Spotlight" earlier this month.

I sure hope this thing hasn't fallen thru.

:tiphat:

Spartan
10-29-2006, 07:04 PM
What's the 'Moore Spotlight'?

Do they have ads for 'Eat Moore Chicken'?

JOHNINSOKC
10-29-2006, 07:05 PM
I agree with you that the removal of the construction company signs pretty much is a telltale sign that the deal is off on the theatre. It's really unfortunate that they gave everyone so much hope that this project would happen and now it appears that Warren has changed their minds. I noticed it last night and just shook my head. I wonder what the reason is for the pull out.

Intrepid
10-29-2006, 07:06 PM
What's the 'Moore Spotlight'?

Do they have ads for 'Eat Moore Chicken'?

It's the print version of the cable access show that appears monthly in Moore (ch. 20 or 22, I think)

Spartan
10-29-2006, 09:24 PM
I have more to do with my life than watch a cable access show...

SoonerDave
10-30-2006, 09:43 AM
All:

I just sent an email to Kenneth Crockett, who is identified as the Corporate Vice President for Warren Theaters. I asked him about this project and advised him about all the rumors swirling about, and these were his responses:

1. The project is ON, and equipment for the theater is being purchased.
2. Construction is slated to begin next month (November).
3. There are NO financial problems at Warren Theaters.


In a follow-up mail, I've asked him if the plans are still for a 20-screen theater. I've not yet received a reply on that.

I have no way of interpreting that information as anything other than positive/good/reaffirming news. This project is still on. There'd be little point in the man lying to me.

-SoonerDave

Easy180
10-30-2006, 09:50 AM
There will be much rejoicing once there is more than just mice running around in that field

Thanks for the info

metro
11-01-2006, 11:56 AM
Perhaps Steve Lackmeyer can do an update article on this project?

xpertinfun
11-02-2006, 12:13 PM
Well, Key Construction does not have it listed under "jobs in progress"....I am emailing someone there to see if I can get a scoop.:tiphat:

MrZ
11-03-2006, 06:23 AM
Well, Key Construction does not have it listed under "jobs in progress"....I am emailing someone there to see if I can get a scoop.:tiphat:

I don't think they ever have. I looked several times since the signs went up and never saw it listed.

xpertinfun
11-07-2006, 05:59 PM
HOLY CRAP! 2 BIG CAT rigs over on the Warren site!

I think it has begun! :welcome5:

There is hope!:kicking:

chrisok
11-08-2006, 12:24 PM
Everything should be about ready to go on this. The delay stemmed from the loan that was obtained for the construction. I don't know the details, but from what I understood the original construction loan ran into some problems because it wasn't compatable with the loan obtained for the land. Delays like this happen when you are a privately owned company without access to unlimited resources.

BricktownGuy
11-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Construction is starting this week.

Moore council voted to waive the city’s normal building permit and impact fees for Warren. About $77,000.

SoonerDave
11-09-2006, 11:07 AM
Awesome!! Looks like everything that was sent to me via email from Warren was spot-on accurate!

-SoonerDave

Easy180
11-09-2006, 11:10 AM
Construction is starting this week.

Moore council voted to waive the city’s normal building permit and impact fees for Warren. About $77,000.

Hey our own little Bass Pro debacle :kicking:

SoonerDave
11-09-2006, 11:17 AM
Hey our own little Bass Pro debacle

Hardly. The City of Moore will make that up in less than one week in sales tax revenue when that place opens.

In the broader view of project costs and expenses at this order of magnitude, $77K is a drop in the bucket.

-SoonerDave

Easy180
11-09-2006, 12:30 PM
Yeah, but that theatre is going to ruin the look of the Lower Riverwalk area and we shouldn't be waiving fees to get them here...Plus it will be taking away business from the existing theatres in the metro who didn't get their fees waived :lol2:

Ronvs
11-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Key Construction has removed their trailer and signs... is the Warren Theatre project officially dead?

chrisok
11-10-2006, 01:29 PM
Key Construction has removed their trailer and signs... is the Warren Theatre project officially dead?

No, construction started this week.