No more Uptown for now

Posted by Josiah Hughes in Culture
Post Hero Image

As of Friday, November 4, The Uptown Stage and Screen and The Marquee Room have announced that they will be ceasing all operations beginning on Sunday, November 6.

According to a press release, the company plans to "suspend all public and corporate programming and events pending resolution of a dispute with its landlord regarding the provision of reliable heat and maintenance."

The historic cinema was built in 1951 and existed as the Uptown Theatre until 1988, when it closed its doors. The current owners purchased the building in 1992, which saw the return of the theatre and the eventual opening of The Marquee Room.

The Uptown has allegedly been involved in a dispute with the landlord regarding heat and other building services since October of 2009, resulting in inadequate heating for the comfort of patrons, according to the release.

As a result of the disagreement, The Uptown will not be programming any events "until such time as the dispute with the landlord is resolved and services can be restored... The Uptown has taken, and will continue to take, appropriate legal action against its landlord with the goal of resuming regular programming, and thus continuing with a Calgary arts institution."

Fast Forward Weekly has not contacted the landlord for comment at this point. The allegations in the press release are not confirmed at this time.

With this in mind, tonight's screening of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and subsequent Teledrome performance at The Marquee Room might be your last chance to enjoy this venue for a while, so keep that in mind when making your Friday-evening plans.


more in Movie Listings     |     posted Nov 4th, 2011 at 2:11pm     

Comments: 42

airin wrote:

wahhhhh booo hissss *bawls*

on Nov 4th, 2011 at 3:09pm Report Abuse

LeslieN wrote:

Really hope this is resolved soon. Most of the film I watch is at this venue (and I love their popcorn) and I had the best time @ the Halloween Howl. Here's hoping!

on Nov 4th, 2011 at 7:12pm Report Abuse

tiptaptip wrote:

After finding out that the dispute is with Strategic, it doesn't surprise me. They've fucked over plenty of businesses around Calgary.

on Nov 5th, 2011 at 11:30am Report Abuse

officematt2002 wrote:

Give us a list tiptaptip.

on Nov 6th, 2011 at 7:58am Report Abuse

tiptaptip wrote:

I'd looooove it if FFWD did an exposé on Strategic. Their shady dealings need to be brought into the light.

on Nov 6th, 2011 at 8:38am Report Abuse

tiptaptip wrote:

Let's do this, Calgary!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Uptown/253944907986437

on Nov 6th, 2011 at 4:30pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

I would like to remind everyone that we have no further information on the alleged dispute at this time. Comments regarding the situation should not disintegrate into defamatory statements. Those that do will have to be removed from the site.

on Nov 6th, 2011 at 10:12pm Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

How is this dispute "alleged"? Did the Uptown "allegedly" close its doors? Did they "allegedly" post a notice on their website saying that they were closing their doors due to a dispute with the management? No, they are verifiable facts. It's a dispute, it's happening, it's not possibly happening.

If you don't have anymore information on the dispute, that's on you. You guys made the blog post and as the journalists and editors running the paper we come to you for more information, not to be told there isn't more information when that clearly isn't the case.

Also, I read the comments before they were edited. You have to be kidding. It was the CEO's name oin their

on Nov 7th, 2011 at 7:50pm Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

Stupid phone.

(his name is on the website) and that he and his wife are on various charitable committees, which is to be expected given their status in the community and the work his company does. Regardless, seems pretty heavy handed on your part especially considering the low risk of liability given the comments that were made.

Which brings me to my next point, I've seen comments that were just as defamatory in articles written by FFWD staffers. I think it's pretty unfair and insulting to your readers to expect them to read your defamatory statements on one hand and then edit them out when they make them on the other.

And yes, I saw your Debbie Downer post directed at Ron and also noticed when it was deleted a day or two later, with the whole blog post. Coupled with your remarks about editing a week or so later and now this, I'm beginning to see a pattern here of "do as I say and not as I do" which is really hindering your credibility as an editor and moderator.

on Nov 7th, 2011 at 8:25pm Report Abuse

officematt2002 wrote:

Give us a list, tiptaptip.

Also, isn't not paying rent a viable reason to evict a tenant?

on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:39pm Report Abuse

calgaryfilmmaverick wrote:

officematt2002,
What do you mean by, "Also, isn't not paying rent a viable reason to evict a tenant?". My understanding is that the Uptown has been paying rent and will continue to even while not programming.

on Nov 7th, 2011 at 11:40pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Mgb: Damn, now I'm on a phone typing. I don't believe that you have seen defamatory statements by our writers in articles. And yes, that comment was bordering on somewhere we don't want to go in a comment thread. Was it heavy handed to remove it? I don't think so.

What I'm saying is that we haven't looked into this further at this point. Yes there is clearly an issue, but what, I don't know. And yes, we will look into it. Patience.

Also, I don't know what happened to the post you mentioned. I certainly didn't delete it.

on Nov 7th, 2011 at 11:45pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Due to a complaint the comment regarding Dave Bulloch and Strategic has been removed. Bulloch is not banned from trading in Alberta. He undertook to cease trading in securities for a period of three years as part of an agreement with ASC in 2009.

on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:09am Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

The ruling on Strategic and Dave Bulloch can be found here for those wishing for more information on this matter:

http://goo.gl/dA4DZ

on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:20am Report Abuse

antielvis wrote:

Strategic? Didn't they have something to do with that big pit in Mission (4th Street).

on Nov 8th, 2011 at 4:13pm Report Abuse

yycarts wrote:

I would be careful what you say on here about Strategic Equity Corp, Riaz Mamdani or Dave Bulloch. Just research it yourself and get the facts. Any facts you post on here gets deleted as FFWD gets complaints or probably a threat of a lawsuit. Just the bottom of the barrel for quality of people.

on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:19pm Report Abuse

Elgoon wrote:

Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to save The Plaza. Place ain't been the same since Pete left and I for one do not like the "Second-run" direction it's heading in.

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 11:57am Report Abuse

tinydoctor wrote:

Elgoon: There's some potential good news on that front coming up. I don't want to jinx it, because as far as I know nothing's confirmed, but there are some good people working on changing the Plaza's direction.

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 2:15pm Report Abuse

antielvis wrote:

@Elgoon: Huge support of indie cinema here & have been for ever a decade.

I love the Plaza, but I find it's "invisible" at times. It needs a much stronger social media presence than it has. It needs to get the word out more. Now, I'm not slagging it, just saying it needs some more improvement.

These cinemas have to work EXTRA hard in the day and age of downloads. Get in my face constantly. Tweet and FB me to death man. Remind me daily what is playing.

@YYcarts: My understanding of law isn't great, but I do believe that "forum" hosts aren't liable for what is written in their forum. So your (or my) nasty comments about Stragetic aren't going to get them sued.

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 5:02pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Unfortunately we can be sued due to comment threads. The threat is low, but it is there.

I may have been a little too nervous on this thread, but if people do report abuse and have a legitimate claim then the post must be removed or we are liable.

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 5:06pm Report Abuse

yycarts wrote:

If it is a fact fight it! These guys are bullies. The truth is coming out and they think the legal system is going to protect them. What they underestimate is the strength of social media, the people have a voice. Strategic, Riaz Mamdani, Dave Bulloch and people of their ilk should be embarrassed in this city to show their face. They are destructive to societies. We will be calling a meeting at the Uptown in the next week to show the public the space and what Strategic Equity Corp. and Riaz Mamdani has destroyed. Its about time people took action against people who have no consideration for anything other than their bank account.

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 11:34pm Report Abuse

yycarts wrote:

Strategic Group - Guilty of Insider Trading
Dave Bulloch - Consented Cease to Trade for 3 years
Riaz Mamdani - Claims of Unfair business practice, Fraud, most likely settled instead of going to trial.

CALGARY, ARE THESE THE PILLARS OF OUR COMMUNITY?

on Nov 9th, 2011 at 11:39pm Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

You're being an idiot yycarts.

Without backing up anything you are saying with legitimate references you aren't giving facts at all, you are just spewing nonsense. And saying, "Just google it" isn't a reference.

I think they were wrong to edit your first post but now you are going overboard reposting things that have been edited out and really upping the slanderous nature of your posts. The more you do that, and do it hiding behind an internet pseudenom, the less likely your claims appear to be.

on Nov 10th, 2011 at 11:48am Report Abuse

antielvis wrote:

@Drew:

No, you can't be sued because the law in Canada is that a forum moderator is NOT liable for the comments made by people that post.

These douche bags are responsible for the Mission Pit. If you dislike them, petition Dave Taylor, Calgary Currie MLA. He commented on the pit months ago in the Mission newspaper.

on Nov 16th, 2011 at 11:20am Report Abuse

rube wrote:

@antielvis:
What's the specific law you're citing? I was under the impression that it hasn't actually been legislated, but that what little case law there is tends to be in favour of the forum owners in completely unmoderated forums, andgets fuzzier if you're doing any moderation (because then it's something closer to a letter to the editor, which you definitely can be liable for, even with disclaimers).
That would mean that deciding the issue would still involve actual court proceedings unless you could settle it beforehand, both of which can still get expensive enough that deleting a potentially libelous post is understandable.

on Nov 16th, 2011 at 11:34am Report Abuse

antielvis wrote:


@Rube: I'm no lawyer, but I recall the law was passed several years ago. The individual's words are their own & if someone dislikes them, they need to take legal action against said person.

Keep in mind there is also opinion vs slander/libel. A forum is considered "broadcasting" in that there is a 3rd party involved. But..one has to prove it's slander/libel versus opinion.

on Nov 16th, 2011 at 11:52am Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

We are a "semi-moderated" forum. So yes, we are liable if people report abuse (see that little link after the comments). If there is a valid complaint and we don't address it, then yes, we can be held liable.
The law differs depending on what kind of forum you have. But, seeing as the laws are all fairly new, there is certainly room for disagreement on what can and can not happen, which means going to court, which means money, which means we'd be in trouble.

on Nov 16th, 2011 at 12:14pm Report Abuse

yycarts wrote:

I would agree with Drew, however, when you are posting facts I believe that the complainant would have difficulty claiming slander or libel.

on Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:36pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Facts are fine, but it's a fine line between fact and error. You posted very similar things. One contained an error, the ones that followed didn't.

Trust me, I don't like taking down comments. It irks me.

on Nov 17th, 2011 at 12:01am Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

The law isn't about whether you are right or wrong, it's about whether or not you can afford the legal fees.

on Nov 17th, 2011 at 1:08am Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
~ Anatole France

on Nov 17th, 2011 at 10:31am Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Just to resurrect this old threat, there's an interesting article in Swerve, this week:

http://swervecalgary.com/2012/01/20/a-landmark-languishes/

Riaz Mamdani is a name which, I'm sure, we'll be hearing about a lot more in the future.

on Jan 20th, 2012 at 9:17pm Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Just digging around a little more about this issue (hey--it's a dull, cold Friday!), and I found this other mention of Mr Mamdani:

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/torts-damages/6162492-1.html

This guy really is bad news. And it kind of undermines the argument of how great Canada's multi-juristictional securities regulations are at keeping fraudsters from scamming people here.

on Jan 20th, 2012 at 10:37pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

It's clear people are passionate about this and that's great, but seriously people, you can't post libelous statements on the website and expect them to stay up. The last comment was removed for several infractions.

on Mar 8th, 2012 at 9:48am Report Abuse

zigzag wrote:

http://www.riazmamdani.com/

on Mar 8th, 2012 at 11am Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Drew Anderson,

There is nothing libelous about posting the truth--that Mr Mamdani has already had the book thrown at him by a court in the U.S. Why is this man allowed to do business in Canada? Canada's immigration screening, as well as Alberta's real estate and securities regulation, are a joke. There needs to be an international blacklist of these sort of people.

on Mar 14th, 2012 at 12:02am Report Abuse

mgb wrote:

Whoa, "the best website ever"? Maddox is definately going to have something to say about that.

I'm not sure that a website entirely devoted to smearing businessmen is really ever going to be in the running for best website ever though. Maybe "Most Quickly Removed By Host Ever" but it's no wikipedia or google.

Also, it's hilarious to watch you defiantly and disrespectfully keep arguing this position at a place that's asked you politely not to several times.

on Mar 14th, 2012 at 4:34am Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Le sigh. Yes, you can be charged for libel for printing "the truth."

Riaz Mamdani is from Canada, so there goes the immigration argument you love so much. Securities regulator? Okay, you may have a point there, it has consistently been proven toothless.

If you fine folks read the terms of use, you will notice all kinds of rules, including a prohibition on posting links to websites. I tend to overlook things like that when they're harmless, but I will continue to remove libelous posts.

Commenting on this website is not is not a right and I have better things to do with my time than babysit this comment thread.

on Mar 14th, 2012 at 9:40am Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Rescued from the Memory Hole:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Court+Upholds+Bristol%27s+Fraud,+Breach+of+Fiduciary+Duty+and+Unfair...-a076729065

"At a hearing on July 23, 2001, the Los Angeles County Superior Court upheld claims for Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unfair Business Practices against JAWZ Inc. (Nasdaq:JAWZ), its current Chief Executive Officer, Robert Kubbernus, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Riaz Mamdani."

on Apr 9th, 2012 at 7:01pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use