This is disappointing. We don't need another first-run theatre at the expense of a second-run theatre. If you want to see Isle of Dogs right now go to Fox Tower or Hollywood.

@phlegmmy How do you claim they aren't hurting for crowds when the article specifically quotes the ownership talk about how shifts in viewership trends has affected their attendance? Can you not read? If you are independently wealthy, go ahead and open your own theater however you like it without any regard for the business decisions required to make it viable and sustainable.

The "if you don't like the way they're doing it, do it yourself" response to a critique is a laughable argument used only by dimwits.

I started going to the Laurelhurst regularly when I lived down the street over a decade ago, and it's the repertory programming that has kept me coming all these years even though I moved out of the neighborhood. So I hope the thing that's "in the works" for repertory titles is "still showing them, regularly & cheaply," rather than some stupid annual membership scheme or something.

Maybe this will turn out to be a good financial decision, but I don't see how. I for one certainly don't have any reason to come out anymore, if the programming's the same as any other first-run theater. There are tons of places in Portland to see a first-run movie for $8 or $10 with pizza and beer. There was only one Laurelhurst.

@phlegmmy So your personal attendance experience trumps the numbers the actual owners are seeing, including their gross receipts vs operating costs? Amazing!

And if you're going to do a membership or fundraising drive, that kind of cancels out the idea of a "non-premium" price, since you are simply paying the same higher price but the spelling is different because it's a "fundraiser" and not a "ticket price."

I don't see how the "do it yourself then" critique is any different than pointing at the Hollywood or Cinema 21, which is "do it like them."