|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

But unfortunately it is not.
There is a LOT of overhead in theatres, much more so than other businesses.

So are you saying you agree with not having union operators?

After reading this thread, I am definitely starting to see both sides of the coin. Thanks, guys.

 |  IP: Logged

As to this industry, it is pathetic that there is no incentive for putting on a good presentation. Theatres can not make money by showing the movie...as such why should they put anything extra into showing it? Check any study and you will find that the bulk of the movie goers will go to the closest theatre playing the film they want to see, regardless of presentation quality. After deciding on the film, then such things as cup-holders and stadium seating (or not) are considered.

Overall presenatation just doesn't seem to be a measurable thing. Now that said, the theatre I work, the Uptown, seems to out gross all the theatres in the area on any given title despite not having any parking and not being close to the vast majority of it's patrons. It is a huge single screen house (another anomoly these days) and sloped floor on the lower level, stadium in the balcony. The only explanation for it doing so much better than the competition has to be attributed to perceived presenatation...that is...the huge Cinerama screen with curtains and digital sound...plus the atmosphere of going to an old showplace. Oh and as far as the theatre chain (LCE) goes, it is the only theatre that has full-time union operators for the entire day, every day. This theatre has never lost money, to the best of my knowledge. Why? It sure doesn't fit the mold of today's ideal cinema model. Today's theatres and business plans have landed all the big chains in bankruptcy. In fact, the only time when the movie industry was a thriving business that didn't compete for mediocraty is when this type of theatre was the norm. Again, the only thing it has going for it, really, is a perceived presentation by uneductated consumers (lets face it, most movie goers already think we run the films off of tape or DVD). They have no idea what it takes to put on a show.

The industry and the world in general would be a better place if there were fewer screens and those that were left were very high quality so that going out to the movies was something special to be looked forward too. To me, the idea of having a business where the main purpose (showing the movie) is perverted into selling the food as a means of survival is just plain stupid and inherently doomed. This is not all the exhibitor's fault but certainly partly theirs, from an historical standpoint. They will always offer to take a little less to get their product (look at the absurd agreements entered into when Star Wars EP 1 came out, what idiots). The studios are certainly not clear here either, they want too much so that the exhibitor can make a profit by just showing the movie nor do they insist on their product being shown and kept well....just think what would happen if exhibitors were held liable for the quality of the shows (and prints). So, in a sense, the studios could drive the quality of the cinema market.

I will end this little diatribe with...if you can't afford to have someone whose sole responsibility is to maintain the quality of the show (the PROJECTIONIST) then you really can't afford to be in business, the industry as a whole would be better off without your theatre. We need quality, not quantity. The union badge isn't a requirement but it sometimes helps or sometimes hurts. To anyone that thinks that what started the labor movement, unions, is now outdated...you are quite mistaken...as long as employers will try and get the most out of an employee while paying the least exists (that will be forever) unions will be needed to offset that situation...the key is to strike a balance...neither should be absolutely powerful.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

The breakup of exhibition and production was a primary factor in the lowering of standards... IF you hold that the unions of the time were the guardians of the standards, which I sometimes question. Until this, Paramount et al COULDN'T remove the union from the theatres without a backlash from the union personnel involved in production. If there was a single factor that allowed for the "busting" of the union, this breakup was it.

I've said it before, and I still believe it, the mega and multiplexes need to rent particular auditoriums *by the year* to the various distributors, and those auditoriums need to be clearly labeled with corporate logos. The only way the players in the industry will admit to any responsibility is if they have a responsibility from conception to presentation. Long term leases provide the theatre owner with a guaranteed income, and studios quickly have to adapt to providing quality product throughout the year to pay the rent, and insuring presentation quality at "their" auditoriums.

The problem of lower standards has less to do with the faults of any individual or group within the system than it does with the lack of an oversight or responsibility for the gestalt. Look at this simplified line:

Concept > Film stock > Production > Duplication > Distribution > Transport > Exhibition.

Each stage now represents a different company trying to suck out maximum profits from their share of the pie. Maximum profits inherently means that there is a balancing point of profits vs. quality. Unlike the publishing industry, where the major construction of the end product (book) has multiple complete paths to the consumer, movies must all pass through certain bottlenecks, which tends to homogenize the quality. I can pick up a book that is a poorly constructed romance paperback, or I can buy a high-end book that has stunning art and high quality paper and binding. If, OTOH, I look for a variation in movies, I get to see "Lawrence of Arabia" on the same spotted screen that showed "Freddie Got Fingered," while sitting in the same dirty seats, and having to deal with the same poor print inspection. The exhibition model is flawed, and it is a wonder that it held up as well as it did over the last fifty years.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Jerry, I don't agree with you here though I will agree that it was a factor in production losing interest in exhibition. Quality was high in yesteryear because it was simply expected by the public...remember what one got at the filling station? You got a car wash, oil checked tires checked...and gas pumped...now we all think we are so thrifty by pumping it ourselves (nevermind that in NJ they still pump your gas for the same prices as self-serve in other areas).

Look at our industry today...Redstone owns Paramount and National Amusements (aka Showcase and Multiplex cinemas)...I don't see them having the ultimate standard of presentation, not even for Paramount product...Sony had their fingers in Loews, Cineplex while owning Columbia and Tri-Star...there are still the studio connections.

Before we even get to the theatres...the quality of the prints are just god awful. They contact print the intermediate stage to ensure maximum image unsteadiness. The whole poorly thoughtout polyester thing is another presentation loser as it seems to have made both film slitting and perforating more difficult and less uniform (and don't get me started on the absolutely dumb cyan track thingy) It's like they dumb down the film before the public gets to see it. Ever seen an EK print? I recently did a premier with one EK print and one release print...the difference is more than night and day...it is quality and trash.

As to the unions...I put them in 4 categories of evolution in this industry...there was the charter members....these were the guys that had it rough...it was hazardous work (nitrate you know) and there were no rules...thus they formed local unions to protect themselves from abuse physically and monitarily. Then came the "sons"...these were the guys that came in around WW2 and made not only a career but a craft out of the job. These are those old-timers that had to deal with the past and the new widescreen processes...whose booths were impecable who legends, at least in our area, still live on.

Then came the "sons of the sons." This is the group that started to lose it all. Platters came in on this group, xenon came in on this group and the attitude of the operators changed...the sons of the sons had the attitude of entitlement. They didn't learn the craft from their fathers as much as the short cuts....in our area, there were many reports of being drunk or high in the booth (this group came in in the '60s)...having met or worked with many of these people, it wasn't just a rumor...heck they will tell you the stories themselves. By the way, I metion the operators as male since that was just about all there were...in fact, up until not too long ago in Local #224 gave a seniority preference to the "first born son of a member. Well how long does it take before a theatre owner asks...how can I afford to pay this high-priced idiot to watch a platter (or reel) spin around while drunk or high and generally break more equipment than they fix? I can certainly pay someone a whole lot less for this quality without all the grief...considering that the movie industry was going through some tough times in the '70s. Certainly, this is a generalization and there are/were fine craftspeople in this group but it doesn't take too many rotten apples to spoil the barrel for everyone.

The last group of union operators is the one we are in now...the ones that seemingly have little connection to the origins and are, at times, apologizing for the misdeeds of yesteryear. Their technical prowse is often below where it should be for no other reason that they really didn't have any master operator to mentor them. They are often suffering from living in a time where society doesn't understand that labor unions can be a good thing and support a laborer's grievence by not crossing a picket line. They also suffer from the fact that being a projectionist is not considered a career move anymore. The government doesn't help matters by shifting the power way over to management side.

I maintain that trade unionism is a necessary evil that can benefit all workers within a trade, even if all of the workers are not unionized. All the government has to do is maintain the rules between employers and unions.

Steve