From the Peoria Riverfront Museum Facebook page — the July 13, 2010 entry:
What’s an “IGST Theatre”? It’s interesting that these same slides were shown at the County Board meeting, except that the “IGST Theatre” sign was removed. Why were the slides changed?
It’s like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, where they just erased or altered the photographic evidence.
I just googled about a dozen different permutations of -IGST Theater- and came up with NOTHING.
Considering that the rendering is from the project’s consultant (PSA-Dewberry), my guess is that the “IGST” was created internally to represent the IMAX branding locations on the exterior of the building without actually using the brand name “IMAX”.
My guess is that the “I” simply is there to invoke IMAX, while the “GST” just stands for “Giant Screen Theater”.
As to why they were changed before the meeting, I couldn’t speculate. Could be as simple as wanting to avoid the public thinking that the museum group reached an agreement with a company named “IGST”.
I think it stand for “I Got Screwed Theater”.
It’s Going to Suck Theater (IGST) without IMAX
I think Sterling is right. Still, it’s interesting to me that the maps and other materials leading up to and immediately following the referendum made no bones about putting “IMAX” in big bold letters. Citizens for Responsible Spending even questioned how they could put that brand on there when there was no contract. Museum officials consistently said not to worry about the lack of a contract — it would be an IMAX. They just had to wait until the referendum passed to sign the paperwork.
But now they’re reluctant to put the “IMAX” brand on their renderings. Things certainly have changed since the referendum.
One more thing — these slides are a great example of how unexciting a non-IMAX theater will be. It doesn’t matter that there is no “IGST” company. Substitute any real giant-screen theater company you want there. Imagine it said “ETI Theatre,” or “Global Immersion Theatre,” or “Sky-Skan Theatre.” It would be no more meaningful than “IGST Theatre.” Anyone driving by would look at it and say, “Huh? Never heard of that before.”
So these pictures are helpful for seeing just how much more unimpressive our new museum will be after the bait and switch is complete.
While, personally I would prefer choosing the best system available whatever it may be (assuming reasonably close cost), I fear that this is one of those situations where branding could well trump quality and projected lower attendance come to fruition.
Maybe the artist’s rendition says it all: notice how well it is attended by all the cars surrounding it. /end sarcasm/
Did anyone ever think the museum people were just using the term IMAX like others use Kleenex, Velcro or Dumpster? As a generic when it, in fact, is a trademark? If that were the case and forget about what you think about the project, would that assuage a few of you? I wonder if that is what happened or not?
Alex:
Always a possibility. Then why would all the Build the Block Literature, commercials and presentations include the words, IMAX in them? Would you think that IMAX might not like their name being used if the theater was only going to be IMAX-like?
Spikeless:
You make a great point. Nevertheless, pre-referendum — the theater was IMAX not the best system available whatever that may be ….. it was IMAX — which de facto in my opinion was being promoted and advertised as the best system available.
Part of the package for the up to $40M vote was the definite inclusion of an IMAX. As I was and still am the Chairman of Citizens For Responsible Spending, I have first hand knowledge of many people who voted for the referendum based on the inclusion of an IMAX. Just last night, someone approached me to express frustration about having voted for an IMAX and now it looks in that person’s opinion that it is highly unlikely that an IMAX will be included. This person feels betrayed and shared that this person would never have voted yes if it were to be an IMAX-like theater.
Additionally, with the vote difference only being 410 votes and the IMAX was a huge marketing tachnique, cut the 410 in half and add one vote for 206 votes. In my experience with this issue on the front lines, there were more than 206 votes for the IMAX feature alone, so the referendum was, in my opinion, not won on a level playing field.
CJ – as it’s unlikely that anyone at the public newspaper will have the ambition to followup, perhaps you could contact Richerson at Lakeview and press him to provide a list of Museums that are operating today in the US that have a non-IMAX giant screen theater. And also press him for a list of available giant screen non-IMAX films that are avialable. This is absolutely bunk, he’s pulling the most dishonest sham on the Peoria public I can recall as long as I’ve been in Peoria. All of their benchmarking as far as financial operations of museum facilities as well as the attendance projections are all based on IMAX included facilities. They have absolutely nothing to stand on as far as operations without the IMAX brand name to draw visitors. It’s ludicrious for anyone on the City Council to allow them to proceed without an IMAX contract. Let the Council give them a Redevelopment Agreement for 90 days in which to negotiate a contract with IMAX and then come back to the Council and ask to proceed. Without that contract with IMAX, the City Council would be foolish to allow them or the County a no-holds barred authorization to proceed. Please do us all a public service and press Richerdson for more information on non-IMAX facilities, and if he can’t deliver, then we all (including the City Council) ought to be aware.
A worldwide Google Map of the locations of all Giant Screen Theaters with some info about each – although it’s unclear as to how recently it has been fully updated.
Another search for all giant screens can be found at Big Movie Zone
“If that were the case and forget about what you think about the project, would that assuage a few of you? I wonder if that is what happened or not?”
I wonder if we told the county that we we only meant an increase in taxes in a generic way… you know, like… raise someone else’s taxes.
Do you think that would assuage the county and the PRM people?
We apparently are so used to politicians lying to us that we can’t even convict a Governor of corruption because, it was “just political talk”.
i think the rendering is very accurate. i see one car at the museum on a beautiful day. are they being honest with us here and finally admitting to what we already know? freudian slip perhaps?
Just a Thought,
I understand your issue with Richerson, but maybe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction…?
Richerson is a ‘tool’ [which, by the way, rhymes with fool]. Who are the real ‘movers-and-shakers’ behind this little project? Hells Bells, you don’t even see Richerson playing his ‘front man’ role anymore! Now we have blowhards like Ransburg, Beasley, Urich, etc, calling the shots. Richerson lacks the charisma to make a good ‘pitchman’. All he has to do is sit back, and look forward to a spanky new office and an inflated paycheck.
The City Council, County Board and PRM Board are [almost] all drink’n buddies. GOOD LUCK CRACKING THAT NUT.
Spikeless: Nice lists on the links. I’d say about 95% IMAX across the board. I remember filling out the local resident museum survey and repeatedly stressing the IMAX brand along with my approval. Apparently this must have not been noticed. Does anyone know if someone really won the “$200 Grand Prize” for filling out and submitting the survey?
Ignominously Generic S#*t Tank
New Voice,
Maybe one of those is an “empire bilder”???
Also, a new City Councilperson, with ambitions to replace Leitch some day??