Connect with us

Business

One Fix for Ailing Movie Theaters? Becoming Nonprofits.

Published

on

One Fix for Ailing Movie Theaters? Becoming Nonprofits.

Nicki Wilson was shocked when her local newspaper reported in March 2023 that the Triplex Theater, an independent four-screen movie house in Great Barrington, Mass., was shutting down after almost three decades in business.

The Triplex, the only theater in town, was a much-loved fixture, attracting moviegoers from all around the Berkshires, even on winter nights when not much else was open, Ms. Wilson said.

“I couldn’t imagine living in a town without a movie theater,” she said.

Ms. Wilson wasn’t the only one who felt this way, and after a communitywide campaign the Triplex reopened in November 2023 in a much different form. No longer is it dependent on ticket and popcorn sales. The Triplex has become a nonprofit organization relying on donations, grants and plenty of volunteer labor. And instead of leaning on the next Hollywood blockbuster, the Triplex focuses on what the community wants to see.

“In an independent theater, you can show what you want,” said Gail Lansky, vice president of the Triplex’s board. “You can show retrospectives. You can show foreign films. You can do film festivals. Free Saturdays for kids”

Advertisement

Certainly not all nonprofit theaters are doing well, but the model has worked, at least so far, in places like the Berkshires, where a devoted and well-heeled clientele is willing and able to support the arts. Two nearby nonprofit movie theaters in New York, the Moviehouse in Millerton and the Crandell Theater in Chatham, have attracted sizable fan bases. Across the country, more than 250 movie theaters are nonprofits, said Bryan Braunlich, executive director of the Cinema Foundation, a movie-industry group that provides research for cinemas.

“We are definitely seeing a trend of communities rallying around their local theaters,” he said.

And movie theaters have needed saving. Since 2019, the number of screens operating in the United States has declined 12 percent, to 36,369 as of 2023, said David Hancock, chief analyst in media and entertainment at the research firm Omdia. The popularity of at-home streaming over the past decade was a factor. Before the pandemic, audience numbers were already waning, but Covid nearly dealt the industry a death blow, as consumers got used to staying home and became pickier about what movies they went to a theater to see.

“People certainly came back, but much more slowly,” said the Triplex’s former owner, Richard Stanley. “Ultimately, I saw the handwriting on the wall and decided I had to close.”

When a theater shuts down in town, it’s not just a problem for film buffs. Because of their unique architecture, with sloped floors and few windows, they are hard to convert to other purposes and often leave prominent spaces empty.

Advertisement

Becoming a nonprofit allows theaters to draw on different revenue sources, like film festivals, and the hope is that a theater catering to the people of a town will build a loyal and supportive base.

This doesn’t happen overnight. That was the case with the Belcourt Theater in Nashville. A community group had raised millions of dollars to operate and renovate the 1925 movie palace, which briefly served as the main stage of the Grand Ole Opry.

“All of us who work in the theater remember the days when we’d show ‘Badlands’ to four people, and now we show ‘Badlands’ to 150 to 200 people,” said the Belcourt’s executive director, Stephanie Silverman, referring to the director Terrence Malick’s debut feature from 1973.

Those who rallied around the Triplex are hoping for the same. When the theater opened in 1995 on the site of a burned-down lumberyard, nearby shopping centers had sucked the life out of Main Street and Great Barrington was struggling economically, said Mr. Stanley, Triplex’s former owner.

Main Street is a very different place today, largely because of an influx of tourists and weekenders, and the Triplex “was a very pivotal, really core thing that brought people to town,” said Betsy Andrus, executive director of the Southern Berkshire Chamber of Commerce.

Advertisement

By 2023, two other multiplexes in the Berkshires, in Lanesborough and North Adams, had already shut down. But Ms. Wilson believed there was hope for the Triplex. She called Mr. Stanley to ask if there was some way to reopen the theater.

“I asked what we could do, and he said, ‘Well, pay me $1 million and you can buy the theater,’” she said.

Ms. Wilson didn’t have $1 million to spare, but she did have plenty of friends. In April 2023, she invited her neighbors to her living room to discuss saving the theater. The group, which called itself Save the Triplex, created a GoFundMe page and a website to raise money. The response was overwhelming, said Hannah Wilken, who had spent many weekends at the Triplex with her friends as a teenager and was involved with the fund-raising.

Even people who hadn’t been to the theater since before Covid felt a visceral connection to the place. “We just started getting inundated with people saying: ‘I want to help. I want to donate. Sign me up,’” Ms. Wilken said.

The actress Karen Allen, who owns a fiber-arts store in town, turned over memorabilia from “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” which she starred in, for an auction. A major boost came when the photographer Gregory Crewdson donated $225,000, after selling copies of a signed limited edition of his work.

Advertisement

Within a few months, the group had raised $246,000 — enough to pay the first year’s mortgage. Mr. Stanley liked the idea of keeping the Triplex alive as a nonprofit run by the town’s residents and gave Ms. Wilson’s group a five-year mortgage to buy the theater.

The campaign has benefited from the large and devoted Berkshires arts community, which regularly draws celebrities to town. Bill Murray showed up at the Triplex to discuss “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou,” the Wes Anderson film in which Mr. Murray played the title character, and Joan Baez was there for a showing of a documentary on her life. Arlo Guthrie discussed the 1969 movie “Alice’s Restaurant,” which had been filmed nearby. Not all the events have made money, but enough have done well to keep the Triplex going.

Movie theaters remain a dicey business, and for the Triplex to survive long term it will need a lot more money. The four screening rooms need major renovations. And although an active board oversees the theater’s operations, it had just two full-time paid employees until this month. (A third full-time employee starts later this month, and the theater also has part-time help including the people who sell tickets and popcorn.) Ms. Wilson, the board’s president, hopes to hire more people, but for now the theater still depends largely on volunteers.

“The challenges are real,” said Ms. Lansky, the board’s vice president. “Everybody knows that an independent theater cannot rely on tickets and concessions alone.”

Nonprofit theaters also tend to be a low priority for film distributors, Mr. Hancock of Omdia said. That means they can’t always show the latest Hollywood blockbuster and must find other ways to keep up audience enthusiasm and a continuing commitment from the community members to donate money and volunteer their time, he said.

Advertisement

“The model can work, but only if the cinema is valued by the local community,” Mr. Hancock added.

Still, those behind the Triplex’s revival believe an audience is out there. Sitting at home and watching movies on Netflix just isn’t the same thing, said Ben Elliott, the creative director at the theater and one of its few paid staff members.

Mr. Elliott grew up in Great Barrington and regularly visited the Triplex as a child. One of the things he missed during Covid was the sound of conversations in the lobby after a movie ended.

“Being together in a physical space is something that’s becoming rarer and rarer, and holding on to that, I think, is important for communities across the country,” he said. “It’s also, for us, the most viable way to keep a theater open.”

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

Published

on

Video: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

new video loaded: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

Nicole Sperling, a Times reporter who covers Hollywood and the streaming revolution, breaks down the competing bids from Netflix and Paramount to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

By Nicole Sperling, Edward Vega, Laura Salaberry, Jon Hazell and Chris Orr

December 9, 2025

Continue Reading

Business

HBO Max subscriber sues Netflix to halt merger

Published

on

HBO Max subscriber sues Netflix to halt merger

Let the legal battle begin.

On Monday, a Las Vegas-based HBO Max subscriber sued Netflix over concerns that the streamer’s plans to buy some of Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets would create an anti-competitive environment in the entertainment industry and raise subscription prices.

Netflix said last week it agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery’s film and TV business, its Burbank lot, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service for $27.75 a share or $72 billion. It also agreed to take on more than $10 billion of Warner Bros.’ debt, creating a deal value of $82.7 billion.

Michelle Fendelander alleges in her lawsuit that if Netflix’s deal were to go through, it would decrease competition in the subscription streaming market. She is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the merger from happening or issue a remedy for the anti-competitive effects.

Advertisement

“American consumers — including SVOD purchasers like Plaintiff, an HBO Max subscriber — will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money,” according to Fendelander’s lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose.

Netflix on Tuesday called the lawsuit “meritless” and “merely an attempt by the plaintiffs bar to leverage all the attention on the deal.”

The Los Gatos, Calif.,-based streamer is long seen as the winner of the subscription streaming wars, boosted by having successfully entered the streaming content space earlier than rivals and for its superior recommendation technology. By buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, Netflix would gain access to more franchises and characters, including Batman, “Game of Thrones” and Harry Potter. Netflix said it plans to keep Warner Bros.’ commitments to bringing its movies to theaters.

But Fendelander and some industry observers are concerned that Netflix owning one of its streaming rivals will hurt the entertainment industry because it means less competition.

“The elimination of this rivalry is likely to reduce overall content output, diminish the diversity and quality of available content, and narrow the spectrum of creative voices appearing on major streaming platforms,” according to the lawsuit by Fendelander, who has never been a Netflix subscriber.

Advertisement

Streamers over the years have steadily raised their prices, and some analysts said they would not be surprised if subscription prices continued to go up.

Netflix executives said they believe their deal to acquire WBD’s assets will benefit key stakeholders.

“It’s going to mean more options for consumers,” said Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters on a call with investors last Friday. “It’s going to be more opportunities for creators, more value for our shareholders. Together, we’ve got the chance to bring great stories, cutting edge innovation and more choice to audiences everywhere.”

Peters also pointed out at a UBS conference on Monday that Netflix combined with the assets it is acquiring from Warner Bros. Discovery would still amount to a smaller share of U.S. TV viewing than YouTube.

Whether the deal will get over the finish line remains to be seen, although Netflix executives say they believe it will. On Monday, Paramount said it would directly appeal to shareholders to offer an alternative bid.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

Published

on

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s ban on federal permits for wind energy projects in what supporters said was an important victory for the embattled industry.

President Trump issued the ban on his first day back in office through an executive order that called for the temporary withdrawal of nearly all federal land and waters from new or renewed wind-energy leasing. The president said such leases “may lead to grave harm” including negative effects on national security, transportation and commercial interests, among other justifications.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, for the District of Massachusetts, ruled that the ban is “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” and said the concern about “grave harm” was insufficient to justify the immense scope of a moratorium on all wind energy.

The challenge was brought by attorneys general in 17 states, including California, and Washington.

In it, they argued that halting federal wind permits created an “existential threat” to the wind industry that could erase billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs.

Advertisement

“A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

At least seven major offshore wind projects were paused as a result of the federal permitting ban, according to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, plus several more that were in early phases of development.

“This ban on wind projects was illegal, as this court has now declared. The administration should use this as a wake-up call, stop its illegal actions and get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy,” said Kit Kennedy, the council’s managing director for power, in a statement.

The lawsuit noted the president’s executive order was issued the same day as his National Energy Emergency Declaration, which encouraged domestic energy development not tied to wind and other renewables. The president has heavily supported fossil fuel production including oil, gas and coal.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while the rest of the energy industry was “hindered by burdensome regulations.”

Advertisement

“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” Rogers said. “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”

California has vowed to stay the course on offshore wind despite the federal challenges.

The state has an ambitious goal of 25 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy by 2045, by which point California officials say offshore wind could represent 10% to 15% of the Golden State’s energy portfolio. Five ocean leases have already been granted to energy companies off Humboldt County and Morro Bay.

In August, the Trump administration said it was cutting $679 million for “doomed” offshore wind projects, including $427 million that had been earmarked for California.

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. clean energy at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said obstructing the build-out of clean power is the wrong move as the country’s need for electricity is surging from data centers, industry and other demands.

Advertisement

Wind, solar and battery storage offer the most affordable ways to get more reliable power on the grid, Kelly said.

“We should not be kneecapping America’s largest source of renewable power,” he said, “especially when we need more cheap, homegrown electricity.”

Continue Reading

Trending