Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mr. Nasher strikes again!

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Mr. Nasher strikes again! (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Mr. Nasher strikes again!

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-13-2001 05:52 PM

Just so Tom knows, the sump pump was boxed in and the ducts were cleaned religiously. Now I know why they were!

Regardless of any other particular details of Cinema I, it was still the best combination of acoustic design and equipment I have ever heard.

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 08-16-2004 04:32 PM

It has been 1251 days since the last post.

| IP: Logged

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 08-16-2004 04:32 PM

This was one of Winnipeg's best theatres. It was also Manitoba's largest single-screen theatre until it was split at the balcony in 1979.

I wish I could have visited the Northpark. Are there updated links for the demolition pictures?

Thanks.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-16-2004 04:43 PM

And they even left the A4 bass cabs on stage now that is a real waste [Mad]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-16-2004 05:26 PM

Link to demolishing pictures on page 1 of this thread fixed.

| IP: Logged

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 08-16-2004 09:23 PM

Thanks Brad!

So Gordon, did you recognise that that's the Capitol? Would the screen have taken up that whole area? It had XL's and Xebex, right?

| IP: Logged

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 09-07-2015 10:02 PM

It has been 4039 days since the last post.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 09-07-2015 10:02 PM

As someone new to Dallas now, reading a thread like this just makes me want to cry.

Thanks Mr. Nasher.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 09-08-2015 09:10 AM

Demo pics links broken again

What a shame the things people are driven to do by money. [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-08-2015 11:59 AM

The GCC Northpark 1-2 theater was a stellar enough venue to be worthy of hosting movie world premiere events. I blame the loss of the Northpark 1-2 on a couple of things. Certainly Mr. Nasher was the executioner. But the rise of stadium seated theaters and the financial problems of General Cinema in the late 1990's put Northpark 1-2 on death row. The movie-going public of Dallas-Fort Worth deserves a good bit of blame too. They threw their support behind stadium seating and circus style lobbies.

The Dallas-Fort Worth market was ground zero of the stadium seated theater building binge, which kicked off with the AMC Grand 24 in May of 1995. That binge ushered in the term "megaplex." AMC and Cinemark both went nuts building new stadium seated theaters around the metroplex. Audiences flocked to these new theaters, turned on by the novelty and overlooking the serious design flaws that come with stadium seated auditoriums. The theater building binge almost resembled an arms race and it threw several large chains, including AMC, into bankruptcy. General Cinema was a casualty, going bankrupt in 2000 and dissolving in 2002.

I'd argue THX and 70mm were also casualties of the stadium seating boom. Theater operators figured stadium seating was a big enough gimmick they didn't need other gimmicks like 70mm projection capability or THX certification. This is despite the fact some of these theaters were getting equipped with screens too big for 4-perf 35mm and the fact stadium seated theaters have far worse acoustical challenges than normal sloped houses. Many new stadium seated theaters put digital sound only in a couple or so houses. But, hey, you still have that stadium riser! Oh, by the way, be careful you don't fall down the damned stairs in the aisle when needing to rush to the bathroom during the movie!

The stadium seated theater building boom can also be blamed for common width screens becoming so popular. Is that ceiling in the stadium seated theater too tall? No problem! We'll just mask vertically and make ordinary dramas and comedies HUGE and big epic movies SMALL.

I have yet to hear a stadium seated theater sound system come anywhere close to how good the sound was at the Northpark #1 THX. And the Northpark 1-2 was stuck playing lossy compressed digital sound (DTS & Dolby Digital) in its final years! Newer theaters with d-cinema are playing 24-bit 48kHz uncompressed LPCM audio tracks. They ought to be sounding even better than the Northpark did, not worse. What's their excuse?

A ticket at the Northpark #1 THX didn't cost a premium price, not even to see Titanic in 70mm DTS. The AMC Northpark 15, built about 300 feet away from the bones of the Northpark 1-2, has not one but two premium theaters, an IMAX-labeled house and an ETX house. Their ticket prices are almost $18 and $16 respectively for shows just in just 2D!

D-cinema has some serious compromises, with fake 'scope being one of the worst. The letter-boxing approach on the chip reinforces the practice of building theaters with common width screens. Combine this with soft focus d-cinema projection. Yeah, the image may be rock steady and not have any dirt or scratches, but it still doesn't look as good as the same image on my TV set at home.

I miss the Northpark 1-2. Several things have happened over the past 20 years to greatly diminish my enthusiasm for watching movies in movie theaters. I had a better time going to the show back then.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 09-09-2015 12:22 AM

Premium Large Format, now being used more often (even on TV trailer placement) is just a downright lie. I saw Furious 7 in XD. It cost extra. It was the same piece of content that was playing just down the hall. And while the presentation was ok (Cinemark West Plano), I don't see how it justified the higher ticket price, especially when the movie was letterboxed. I had a better experience watching it at the Legacy in a normal auditorium with a common height screen, with a far less expensive ticket.

Sad thing is the marketing ploy is working: the more and more folks I talk to not in the business or in the know (casual movie goers) LOVE these "premium" houses. I'd love to see some hard statistics on whether or not these premium houses actually do better.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-09-2015 01:05 AM

Well, since the industry "yardstick" is the dollar, rather than the ticket, of course the PLF screens will do better because of the ticket prices. Couple that with the fact that those PLF houses get the biggest movies on opening weekend and the best showtimes, they can't exactly miss.

| IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 09-09-2015 01:13 AM

quote:
(snip)...The Dallas-Fort Worth market was ground zero of the stadium seated theater building binge, which kicked off with the AMC Grand 24 in May of 1995. That binge ushered in the term "megaplex....
I'd argue THX and 70mm were also casualties of the stadium seating boom. Theater operators figured stadium seating was a big enough gimmick they didn't need other gimmicks like 70mm projection capability or THX certification. This is despite the fact some of these theaters were getting equipped with screens too big for 4-perf 35mm and the fact stadium seated theaters have far worse acoustical challenges than normal sloped houses...

The stadium seated theater building boom can also be blamed for common width screens becoming so popular. Is that ceiling in the stadium seated theater too tall? No problem! We'll just mask vertically and make ordinary dramas and comedies HUGE and big epic movies SMALL.

I have yet to hear a stadium seated theater sound system come anywhere close to how good the sound was at the Northpark #1 THX. And the Northpark 1-2 was stuck playing lossy compressed digital sound (DTS & Dolby Digital) in its final years! Newer theaters with d-cinema are playing 24-bit 48kHz uncompressed LPCM audio tracks. They ought to be sounding even better than the Northpark did...
D-cinema has some serious compromises, with fake 'scope being one of the worst. The letter-boxing approach on the chip reinforces the practice of building theaters with common width screens. Combine this with soft focus d-cinema projection...

I agree with this whole post. Someone buy this man a beer.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-09-2015 02:21 PM

quote: Aaron Garman
Sad thing is the marketing ploy is working: the more and more folks I talk to not in the business or in the know (casual movie goers) LOVE these "premium" houses.

To quote Cypher, as he bites into the imaginary steak created by The Matrix, chewing, he says "ignorance is bliss."

Movie studios and theater operators are taking full advantage of that ignorance. Next to no one is calling them on the blantant misuse of the term "large format." They're getting away with it by using brand worship of IMAX or various other premium sounding acronyms or brands. The customers don't know any specifics of what kind of equipment is in the booth or what kind of content is being played. The buzz words and high prices just trick the customers into thinking they're getting something extra when in reality they're usually not.

Movie productions have literally turned into TV productions, complete with video cameras. Yet the dramatic content now often pales in comparison to the quality of series television (cable in particular).

Meanwhile there are more TV shows trying to emulate the CinemaScope™ look by using anamorphic lenses in production then cropping the results to 1.77:1. American Crime, Season 2 of True Detective and Fear the Walking Dead are examples of anamorphic shot TV productions. I think this is very pretentious.

About the only thing in d-cinema production I could consider "large format" is the new Arri Alexa 65 camera. Its 6K resolution CMOS chip is the same size as a 5-perf 65mm film frame and requires the use of lenses similar to those that would be used in 70mm film productions. Unfortunately none of that extra resolution is getting to the movie screen unless it is laser recorded onto a 70mm film print. But who needs that when buzz words are enough? The Arri Alexa 65 was used on portions of Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, with the final digital intermediate down-rezzed to 2K and distributed on a near HDTV resolution 2K DCP. That didn't stop them from using the Alexa 65 logo on the end credits.
[Roll Eyes]

This nonsense is all buttressed by the broad use of that damned "digital" word. If it's "digital" then there's no reason to think about details.

I think the Northpark 1-2 theater might actually still be around if so many people in the movie industry and movie-going public weren't so willfully ignorant of details.

quote: Daniel Schulz
I agree with this whole post. Someone buy this man a beer.

I like a good India Pale Ale.
[beer]

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 09-09-2015 11:52 PM

I think a perfect irony will be to see something like Mission: Impossible get a 4K Blu-ray release from its 4K digital intermediate when the DCP was only 2K. [evil]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.