Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Theater companies STILL screwing their paying patrons

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Theater companies STILL screwing their paying patrons (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Theater companies STILL screwing their paying patrons

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-14-2015 06:50 PM

I've started timing the previews. The last one I went to, at Carmike, had 21 mins of previews.
The record so far (and I don't go to pop movies often) is 27mins at AMC last year.

They both, do, however, start the previews at showtime.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 06-14-2015 09:37 PM

quote: Steve Matz
The Old days of Movie going had cartoons,newsreel,serials,2 reelers and usually 2 features plus a Screen that was equal or larger than the so called BIG D BS.

I doubt they had 80 or 90 foot screens in those days. How big is the big-D?

They also didn't have surround sound, subwoofers, or cushy seats like today. You didn't have 10 or 12 movies to choose from. And a lot of theaters had scratched prints, and if you lived in any non-major city (like Billings) you had to wait weeks for a movie to play in your town. In our case, sometimes up to a year or more and then you were guaranteed to get a scratched up print.

I think if we all were suddenly transported back to the "good old days" we would all immediately start begging to come back to 2015 with all its modern conveniences and improvements. I know I would.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 06-14-2015 10:12 PM

This happened to a friend of mine, she posted this pic on Facebook.

Liemax 3D AMC Barrywoods 24 KCMO

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 06-15-2015 11:48 AM

I don't know when you started going to Movies Mike but trying to say Carmike's seats and Big D Screen were better/bigger than the old days is BS. The original FOX Theater in Billings was built like a lot of the old Fox Palaces built in the 30's/40's. The seats were thick with red crushed Velvet, Fancy Carpeting/ Drapes all over the place.The Prints weren't all scratched up and concessions were reasonable for the day. Granted the sound was Altec Lansing 800 VOTT's back then but the theater still had great acoustics. Surround sound to me is too annoying on some films. When I first saw "Twister" in SS, I was constantly distracted from looking at the Screen because I'm hearing all these sounds like birds tweeting to the left and right of your seat and it just diverted my attention too much. Trying to even remotely compare these Multiplex Theaters to one of the neat Fancy built old Single theaters is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a YUGO. I doubt if people today could go back and have a real Movie expierence would want to come back to the BS of today [beer]

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-15-2015 12:05 PM

Just to be a little pedantic, The Palace Era was the late 20's to early 30's.
Granted, single screen theatres were built big by today's standards, especially towards the end of the 30's and prior to WWII, but they weren't palaces.
I personally prefer the post-Palace theatres, but YMMV.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-15-2015 03:05 PM

The palace era of movie theaters is indeed long gone.

The real palaces were built before TV. This was also a time when most movies were black and white, 1.33:1 in ratio and mixed in mono. Radio and live stage entertainment were the only competition movies had back then. That made it feasible to build single screen theaters that are big by today's standards even in small cities and towns. Some of these theaters were really ornate in their construction and decor.

The home video industry killed off the modern post-palace era movie palace -theaters like the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas. The movie industry became permanently afflicted with ADHD, fueled by demands from investors and accountants to make any movie release blow its wad in theaters ASAP and get on home video as fast as possible. More screens per site helps a movie play itself out faster. This practice has been raised to a global level, helping a mediocre sequel like Jurassic World earn over $200 million domestic and $500 million globally in the first weekend. It will be interesting to see the earnings percentage drop next weekend.

Maybe the ultimate goal is to get movie releases to play themselves out in as little time as a pay per view TV broadcast. With such temporary staying power it might actually be possible for theaters to reduce the number of screens in a new complex. A handful of screens would each play a new movie for just a couple or so days and move on to the next batch. The downside is the same movies would probably be available as HD digital downloads in a matter of days and on Netflix in a couple or so weeks. Customers, just like the bean counters, are also badly afflicted with ADHD. The more fast and convenient you make it for them to see the movie the more easy you also make it for them to just skip the movie. "Nah, I'll just see it on Netflix next week."

I think movie theaters are going to have to start diversifying a bit, showing movies from other sources and other types of content. The studios in Hollywood are leading them on a path to destruction.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 06-16-2015 09:11 AM

Depends a lot on local circumstances. . . . .

In 1971 I serviced 8 local screens that were 70mm-6 track with large A4 Voice of the Theatre. No screen was under 50 ft wide; largest was 80, which was a D-150. 4 were atmospherics, rest modern. Smallest 970 seats, largest about 3800.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 06-16-2015 09:24 PM

quote: Steve Matz
I don't know when you started going to Movies Mike but trying to say Carmike's seats and Big D Screen were better/bigger than the old days is BS. The original FOX Theater in Billings was built like a lot of the old Fox Palaces built in the 30's/40's.

I never said the old theaters weren't more nicely decorated than they are today, although that's mainly a matter of taste. I can tell you for certain though that modern seating is a lot more comfortable than 1930s-era seating, crushed velvet or no crushed velvet. Bigger, wider, deeper. The Fox Theatre in Billings, now known as the Alberta Bair Theater, still has its original seats -- they're tiny and cramped compared to modern seating. They don't recline, they don't have liftable armrests, and legroom is not the best. I was in the Fox Theatre many times during its movie days -- I saw Jaws and Close Encounters there, among others -- I don't know how big the screen was but I doubt it was more than 50 feet wide.

You also have to remember that not all theaters of old were "palaces." There were plenty of dumps then, just like there are now. Billings had the World Theater... that place was no palace.

I know how you feel -- I miss some things from my own personal "old days" too, but to say that all modern movie houses are THAT BAD compared to the old days, is just not true.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 06-17-2015 01:20 AM

The WORLD Theater which was formerly the DOLLY and before that the LYRIC was the Biggest Joke for a Theater there was. The Projection Booth was part of the Lobby and had 3 steps up to the Door. No Balcony, etc. even as a kid comparing it to the FOX or Babcock was a no Brainer. The Stage in front of the Screen was so Low that little kids would go up on it and go up to the Screen and smear what was probably melted Milk Duds trying to touch the Actors before the Ushers would come running down the aisles to chase them off. That was one theater that when it went Tits up was no Big Loss for Movie Goers...

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06-18-2015 09:54 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
You also have to remember that not all theaters of old were "palaces." There were plenty of dumps then, just like there are now.

Hence the British expression "fleapit", which emerged in the 1920s, to describe the smaller houses with cheaper (and ofen bug-infested, as the name implies) seats.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 06-22-2015 03:30 PM

Well it certainly depends upon which era you're talking about. And while there were always "flea pits", there were also truly great theatres. There were 139 theatres in the U.S. with more than 2800 seats (with a median seat count of 3218), 29 of those in NYC alone.

When I was a kid in the 1960s living in NYC, I was lucky enough to live a bus ride away from one of the Loews "Wonder Theatres" - the Loews Paradise (over 3800 seats), which had sculptures throughout, lush carpeting, a star ceiling and moving clouds, but it did not have mag or stereo sound. I always lived near two ordinary theatres, one part of the RKO chain, but it had over 1000 seats and another independent theatre, which was considered very small in its day, but still probably had 700 seats.

But I also travelled into Manhattan to the roadshow theatres like the Rivoli ("West Side Story"), Criterion ("Lawrence of Arabia"), Loews Capitol/Cinerama ("How the West Was Won"), Warner Cinerama ("It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World") and others.

By the time of the Dolby 70mm era, many of these theatres had become run down, but most (of the ones that were still around) still had great projection and sound. And it's a totally different experience seeing a film, especially a popcorn movie, with a thousand or more other people. And there were a few newer quality single-screen cinemas, like the Loews Astor Plaza and the Ziegfeld. Only the Ziegfeld is still with us.

So yes, in spite of things like Dolby Atmos and digital's advantages of steady picture and no dirt/scratches, I'd say that many of the presentations in the 60s-80s were better than today if you went to the best theatres to seek out the best presentations early in the run.

quote: Steve Matz
I believe if the Government could get away with it; they would raise retirement age to 75 yrs and then hope you had a heart attack on the way down to the SS Office to sign up ...

This is exactly what was intended when SS was first implemented in the 1930s. Average life expectancy was way below 65, especially for people who had worked their whole lives. It was thought that very few people would actually collect social security. Even in 1960, it was only 66.6 for men and 73.1 for women. It's almost 80 now.

| 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.