Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rant on stupid theatres

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Rant on stupid theatres (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Rant on stupid theatres

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 10-30-2003 05:32 PM

quote:
Charles, why withhold the names of the theaters? If they know they will be publicly embarrassed, they may be less likely to suck. OK maybe not, but it would at least serve as a warning to other potential customers.

Thanks, Joe, I'll name names for this one:

County Theater, Doylestown PA. 2-screen arthouse that thinks it's a multiplex. As of this post the "Coming Attractions" part of their website lists movies that the theater has no realistic chance of playing:

Dirty Pretty Things -- already played at the Regal Barn Plaza (in Doylestown) and the Regal Warrington Crossing.
The Secret Lives of Dentists -- already played at the Regal Warrington Crossing.
Respiro -- came out on video last week.
Northfork -- already played 1 week in the Regal Barn Plaza.
Jet Lag -- might no longer be in release.

| IP: Logged

Daniel Wright
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 163
From: Okmulgee, Ok , USA
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 11-03-2003 05:21 PM

I was visiting family in Fort Oglethorp Ga, and decided to see Pearl Harbor at the Carmike theatre there. It was I think a five screen. It was clean I will give them that, but in dire need of refurbishing. What was not excusable was the massive leak into the auditorium that Pearl Harbor was showing in. half the seats were soaked. From what I could tell it was comeing from a blocked drain tube on one of the ac units. It was almost raining in there.
Becuase of a problem that an ac repairman could have taken care of quicklly they lost half their revenue for a big opening weekend. Not to mention haveing half the the seats in one of their auditoriums ruined.

| IP: Logged

Ron Keillor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 166
From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 11-09-2003 06:13 PM

Maybe something will be done when it hits the press and gets the report gets forwarded to someone in a head office. I wonder how long the situation has existed that occasioned this item today:
From The Courier (Vancouver, B.C.) Nov.9, 2003

quote:

Despite the bottomless sea of crap movies containing the phrase "starring Angelina Jolie, " overpriced junk food and cattle call of Tuesday cheap-ass nights, the one saving grace of going out to a movie has always been that it was somehow better than sitting in front of a boob tube. The deafening sound, the gigantic screen, the way hundreds of people laughing can make a mediocre comedy seem funnier. Unfortunately, the management at Capitol Six seems to have lost sight of this. After two visits to the sagging cinema on Granville last week, intrepid K&K (the column) reporters had the misfortune of sitting through nearly a dozen TV-style commercials prior to their movies. Not only that, but one of the screens had a large tear in the top corner, which at times looked like a delinquent pubic hair on Sean Penn's forehead. Cap Six better wise up to the fact that if people wanted to see commercials and misplaced pubes they'd stay at home. Now bring on the next Angelina catastrophe!

[ 11-10-2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Keillor ]

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 11-09-2003 07:35 PM

I betchya the screen wasn't torn but was only a hair caught in the aperture.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-10-2003 04:12 AM

how did a pubic hair get stuck in the aperture? i don't want to know.

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 11-10-2003 04:33 AM

Adam depicts how in today's sneak preview update.

http://www.film-tech.com/sneak-peak1/party/party.html

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 11-10-2003 01:32 PM

HA HA! Now fix my damn MySQL server so's I can update the site.

| IP: Logged

Brent Mahaney
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 11-16-2003 06:21 PM

Speaking of concessions staffing at BAD theaters...why in the world do managers want to cut their concessions staff in the first place? Low payroll is great and all, but from a practical standpoint, you make your money in concessions. If you're really busy and you have two concessions people, do you honestly think customers are gonna stand there for 25 minutes and wait to buy popcorn? Your per cap can and will drop. The point is to encourage people to buy, not discourage them.

I've been to a couple of theaters that are so obsessed with low payroll that it hampers the operation of the theater. But hey, the numbers look good on paper, right? Profits look high in the short run, but in the long run, you're hurting your customer base and your per cap. Just my opinion...

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 11-17-2003 05:56 PM

quote:
But hey, the numbers look good on paper, right? Profits look high in the short run, but in the long run, you're hurting your customer base and your per cap.

Looking solely at the size of the payroll is an extremely naive and unsophisticated analysis. What counts is the per cap, as you've stated, as well as the return on investment.

If a worker earning minimum wage sells just three additional people per hour at just a 50% gross margin on the items and just a $4 per cap, that's a net margin of $6 on the $5.25 investment or 12.5% return. Add a fourth customer per hour and the return jumps to 52%. A fifth customer and it jumps to 90% return. It's insane not to staff at a level that prevents people from walking away from the concession stand.

| IP: Logged

Jason Whyte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 132
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 11-21-2003 12:33 AM

quote:
Not only that, but one of the screens had a large tear in the top corner, which at times looked like a delinquent pubic hair on Sean Penn's forehead.

Yeah that sounds like the good ol' Capitol 6 in Vancouver, a theater that is literally falling apart and on its last knees. And they won't even let us take pictures of it. [Smile]

Jason

| IP: Logged

Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-21-2003 01:22 AM

The Capitol 6 has been neglected by Famous Players for sometime. They are running it into the ground because they simply don't give a shit. They are opening one of those neon-filled, lobby based theatres with the " latest and greatest " bullshit.

Sure it is far from perfect design, but at the time it was built it was the king of the castle. Cinema 1 is the biggest theatre in BC. It holds just over 1000 seats and it is very impressive in size.

Capitol 6 was also the highest paid union gig in town with 2 operators per 3 screens. That was all changed in 1988 when Station Square 7 was built and that became the highest paid union gig in town. In '95 the Capitol 6 lost the 2nd operator.

It was THE place to see movies in it's day. But the newer builds are simply busier because more money and effort are put into them. If they cleaned up the place, got rid of those god-awful seats and revamped the booth equipment, I'm sure it would be a very popular theater. Now, the walls are dirty, the ceilings are filthy and this stairway leading down to the underground parking smells like piss.

I think they are running it to the ground on purpose to get people fed up with seeing movies in a sespool so when the new 10 screen opens up, all the " guests " will flock there. IMHO, a very shoddy way of doing business.

RANT MODE OFF.

| IP: Logged

Kris Brunton
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 108
From: Napanee, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11-21-2003 02:41 AM

I think it is that they are not spending any money on the older non profitable theaters.

The Cap 6 I know well and it has one of the largest auditoriums and sound systems in theater 1 (or 2?). I do know the techs are doing there best to maintain the equipment and maintain the sound service in the Cap 6 but so often the technicians for chains are to busy putting out the fires to properly perform any kind of maintenance schedule.

| IP: Logged

Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-21-2003 03:08 AM

Yeah I know about the busy techs. They are overworked. They have something like 2 techs for all of BC? C'mon that is ridiculous. I recall that on one of the busy nights of MIB2, we popped the rectifier in one of the large houses ( 450 seats ) and cancelled the rest of the performances that night because the head tech was doing service in Victoria.

| IP: Logged

Jason Whyte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 132
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 11-21-2003 03:15 AM

Kris,

Cinema 1 still holds the record for the largest cinema in a multiplex in Canada (1031 seats, give or take), if not North America. The sound system (I think SR-D only, I don't recall DTS ever getting in there, but it might have in the other theaters) was out-of-this-world a few years back; I remember seeing "Heat" there and the theater seats literally SHOOK in the shootout sequence. I saw a few advance screenings there last month while taking breaks at the Vancouver Film Festival and was unimpressed with the audio, which was now a lot quieter. The theater itself is still cool to be in, which is mammoth in size compared to today's shoebox stadium cinemas.

I completely agree with every word that Ron has said; both he and I have much interest in this theater which not only has its history, but it is a theater that COULD be run well if they fixed up a bunch of things, notably the seating, the sight lines, the sound, and the overall design of the place. I know, that sounds like a tall order, but why not fix what's there instead of building some stupid googooplex instead?

And that angers me the most. The record-holding massive theater 1 will fall victim to their crappy Paramount Colossus or whatever is going on 900 Burrard Street, which is nothing more than a typical Famous Players Silvercity Auditorium with its largest cinema holding no more than 450 seats, and all with common-width top masking screens. Granville #7 will then become the largest theater in Vancouver, with 664 seats.

I just wish I could share pictures of the place with you all, but Famous Players won't allow pictures and they have been very inconsiderate with my pleas to photograph what has been a staple of downtown Vancouver cinema for the past 26 years.

Jason

| IP: Logged

Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-21-2003 03:29 AM

Jason,

I saw the sneak for Underworld in #2 and the sound was just awesome. From what I have seen looking through the port that it's DTS with a 2000 series SDDS reader. Which I could say the same about #6 where TCM played. That was horrible. Sounded like Dolby A.

It's indeed the last of it's kind. With the Vogue & Stanley live theatres now, and Vancouver Centre demolished, between Cap6, Granville 7 and the independant Denman Place ( ex-famous house ) the big houses that showed all that 70mm of the 80's are almost gone.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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.