|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: End of proper wide screens = the end of moviegoing for me
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-09-2016 02:29 PM
quote:
I think you're over-estimating people. Sure they want things to look right and sound right, but beyond that they really don't know what to look for. . . In the past 40 years, wanna guess how many people have said "It's too bad you don't have masking on that screen"? That's right, zero.
No, they don't complain, do they? And that speaks to the reality of movie-going that everyone here is struggling against: YOU care, and I care, and a handful of more presentation-savvy film-goers care, but Joshua and Caitlin Popcorn don't, and 229.7 million other North American movie-goers don't really either, but they are STILL buying tickets. As long as the presentation is reasonably bright and sharp with intelligible dialog and good multi-channel sound, everybody is good. You need a common height screen for a good presentation? At the big AMC near me, the auditoriums have screens that are neither common height or common width. They default to flat for the pre-show, and when the cue for 'scope hits, all four sides of the masking move in to frame for a 2:39 image. The place does huge business and generally has an excellent technical presentation. Curtains? Why? To close them for a few seconds between the pre-show and feature? That kind of thing impresses the old-timers who fart nails on CinemaTreasures when their local big single screen doesn't use them, but it's passe. It's worse actually, when the Ziegfeld ran Interstellar in 70mm, they opened and closed the curtain three times, and the audience at the show I was at started getting groaning at the pretentiousness of it all.
Common height screens and tight masking are all very well and good, but the lack of same IS NOT GOING TO KILL CINEMA. If it were otherwise, it would be dead already.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-09-2016 07:39 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
In the past 40 years, wanna guess how many people have said "It's too bad you don't have masking on that screen"? That's right, zero.
It's one thing if you have an old theater and are stuck with the screen dimensions and equipment on it due to geometric limitations of the building. Customers understand it's a historic, old theater.
There's no good excuse for installing a bare, incomplete screen in a brand new multiplex.
As for people complaining, why does a problem have to persist until someone complains about it? People in the movie theater industry absolutely know better about this stuff. Since they're pushing forth the bad standards of practice into new theaters anyway it's like they're insulting the customers for not knowing any better (even though it's not the customer's job to know any better).
This notion of maintaining a sub-standard practice or policy because the customers "don't care" can be a very risky gamble. A theater with poor showmanship may not generate many complaints to management. But how does management know for sure the customers haven't noticed the problem?
As I've said berore, in any modern multiplex it can be a GIANT pain in the ass for a customer to alert theater staff about a problem with the movie, be it a technical problem with the show or some jerk in the audience disrupting the movie. I really hate having to leave my seat when the show is underway, especially in a big stadium seated auditorium. After the movie is finished it can be a big pain getting a complaint to the right pair of ears. The vast majority of viewers are not going to screw with any of that. They won't say anything to anyone about the issue. But they won't have such a positive opinion about the theater anymore either. And there is a chance they won't return.
Customers who are perfectly happy paying to see flawed movie presentations aren't a blessing to movie theaters either. Customers who don't care about showmanship and presentation quality also might not care in the slightest if the theater goes out of business. These same customers might be just as happy watching the same movie on TV, on a computer screen or on a phone.
The only thing keeping movie theaters is business right now is that release window of exclusivity over home video. That's all. There's not enough people like us who preferred watching movies in big theaters over watching on TV. Once release windows become short enough all those customers who "don't care" will apply their "don't care" attitude to theaters crying for their help to survive and keep the theatrical movie-going experience alive. They'll save some money and push those theater doors shut for good.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 12-10-2016 12:42 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
In my theater we have our screen masked for scope, but we have a pillarbox presentation for flat movies because it's simply not possible to put movable masking over the ends of the screen due to the way it was built in 1930.
If it was built in 1930, then the original screen would have been 1.33 Academy ratio. How did it end up being 2.35 after that?
quote: Mike Blakesley
In the past 40 years, wanna guess how many people have said "It's too bad you don't have masking on that screen"? That's right, zero.
How many people know the proper term? I didn't know it was called masking until I started working at a theater, but I knew enough that there were 2 aspect ratios for most movies and the unused parts of the screen were covered accordingly. I have seen a few Yelp reviews and Facebook comments for theaters where someone says "The picture didn't fill the screen." Of course many might be used to seeing it that way at home, but again theaters should be BETTER than that. When I watch a letterboxed movie at home I keep thinking "This was made for a wider screen than what I have." Watching a letterboxed movie in a theater says "This theater installed the wrong screen!"
Yes, people will still show up for the big movies regardless of how crappy the presentation is, but even at the theater where I projected film the RIGHT way I know that there are many smaller movies, especially weekday showings, where only a handful of people and sometimes ZERO people show up. Every time I ran a showing to zero people, I wondered if the higher-ups ever took the time to think about why that was? Likely they just figured the movie was lousy, but it also could've been that tickets were too expensive or pre-show ads were turning some people away, or maybe some technical problem that was beyond my control (like delayed upgrading to digital sound)? The smaller movies with unknown actors are ultimately the ones that show who your theater's REAL customers are, who will come no matter what you're showing. But likely people like me will just wait til we can buy them on Blu-Ray for less than the price of a ticket.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-11-2016 12:06 AM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
What's a "Projectionist?" That's a dead title in this new era of operation.
They either quit to find other careers, or moved into the suit world to bounce pencils off the desk and count beans to look important.
Some did progress into the digital tech world, but have to travel as a tradeoff to keep their love for the industry intact.
I thought long and hard about whether to try and stay in the movie theater business or do something else. Ultimately, I decided to bail.
I had a few opportunities to take a job and get training in digital projection but I decided it just isn't worth it. Movie theaters are all but dead. Theaters will remain on life support for a while longer but the plug will eventually get pulled. In Ten years? Maybe twenty? I don't know.
I'm sure that I know much of what I need to know in order to get started as a digital technician, already. Retraining, for me, would probably be about learning the details. I have met so-called technicians who weren't really very knowledgeable. If it wasn't for the fact that they had access to equipment, proprietary software and the right pass codes which I didn't have (and, which were jealously guarded) I would have been able to do their jobs better than they could. If I applied myself, training would be likely just a formality.
I am fifty years old, now. I've probably got another fifteen or twenty years left before I have to decide about retirement. I just don't like what movie theaters have become and I shudder to imagine what they'll be like in fifteen or twenty years' time.
I had to decide which road to take... either stay in a dead and dying industry or to strike out fresh and do something else. I spent many long, sleepless nights thinking about this. I went through a long period of sadness, lamenting the loss of a career I truly enjoyed doing.
The crying is over, for me, now. I am doing something new, now. It's a bit of a stretch, for me, but it's something that is well within my transferable skill set. It's a business that will never go dead in my foreseeable future and, if I apply myself, I have the opportunity to get way far ahead of anything I could hope to achieve working for movie theaters.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-11-2016 05:41 PM
Thanks! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm working in an electronics factory. I've been there for almost a month and things are going pretty well.
Right now, I'm an AOI operator. (Automated Optical Inspection)
Completed circuit boards come out of the reflow oven then go into a machine that scans them with a digicam. As each panel of completed PCBs comes off the assembly line, I zap each one with a barcode scanner to view on a computer screen. The computer calls out a list of possible defects.
It is my job to decide whether those call-outs are true or false. If a panel is bad, it goes to the rework department for repair. If a panel is good, it gets sent on to final assembly and, ultimately, shipped out.
It's pretty monotonous work but I'm still in my training/probationary period. Once I pass probation I will have the opportunity to move up to operating the SMT line.
I don't want to say the name of the business in the clear because they are an ITAR registered facility but they also make Class-3 (Medical Life Support) devices for companies like Welch-Allyn.
Just the other night, I helped make control boards that go inside those portable oxygen concentrators you often see people walking around with, slung over their shoulders.
Like I said, I don't see much chance of this industry going under during my lifetime. Besides, it's kind of cool to be able to walk into a hospital or a doctor's office and see a defibrillator or a heart monitor and be able to say, "I made that!" ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-13-2016 01:28 AM
Most people don't complain when a movie isn't presented properly either because they don't realize it or they don't care. I'm usually the guy who walks out and complains, cursing under my breath with audience members looking at me like I'm nuts (or maybe it's just my paranoia).
Whether the lack of showmanship and/or quality has any affect on a subconscious level as to whether people attend theaters or not is a good question that probably can't be answered. On the one hand, theater attendance has been pretty stable the last few years. On the other, theaters are reducing the seat counts to install lounge seating and I can't believe they'd be doing that if they could fill those seats.
If someone has never attended a roadshow presentation or seen a great 70mm mag 6-track print in a great theatre or attended a movie in a movie palace and has only seen movies in crappy mall theaters or theaters with small screens, they may not realize what great presentation can be like. But overall, as has been discussed in the past, I think people are seeing better presentation than in decades past. Maybe not better showmanship, but better technical presentation.
Personally, while I don't mind sitting in a lounge seat, most theaters that have converted now only have a few seats that have ideal positions, so I actually avoid most of those theaters.
As others have posted, I too have walked out when the Real D filter is left on the projector for a 2D movie. But I haven't seen that recently. I did venture into a local UA theater the other day and there was no center channel. It sounded like they were playing the center channel through the right channel. Guess the center channel speaker blew out or something. I walked out of that one and got my money back. I've seen tech problems in that theater before and IMO, they really have a lot of nerve because they charge just as much as Manhattan theaters do.
As I've posted before, the AMC Prime (Dolby Vision) screen at the Empire 25 in NYC does have a common height screen, although it's rare, if ever, that they play a 1.85:1 film. But there is no masking. Other than that, the presentation is generally fantastic, but I've only seen widescreen movies there.
And while I certainly understand the argument that a 2.39 film should look larger than a 1.85 film, the fact is that you're not seeing both at the same time, so if you do attend a common width theater, the fact that a 2.39 film will have less height won't be noticed by most people, especially if the screen is large enough. I mean you could just imagine that the reduced height is the full size of the screen.
While my own behavior is nothing more than anecdotal, I do see far fewer movies than I used to. Between the high ticket prices (which especially annoys me at crappy theaters), transportation costs, my fear that I'm going to be bored, and having enough entertainment at home, I just don't bother as much. There was a time when if I passed by a theater and something was about to start, I'd see almost anything and seeing 70mm films was a great pleasure. But there's fewer theaters in NYC than there used to be and most of what they're playing doesn't appeal to me anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-13-2016 12:06 PM
quote: Martin Brooks
And while I certainly understand the argument that a 2.39 film should look larger than a 1.85 film, the fact is that you're not seeing both at the same time, so if you do attend a common width theater, the fact that a 2.39 film will have less height won't be noticed by most people, especially if the screen is large enough.
I can't comment on the presentation in that strange foreign land called New York, but here in northern NJ, most venues with common width screens run a 1.85 or 16:9 (1.78) preshow, and then if they have masking, cover the top/bottom for scope. It makes it very obvious when the commercials are bigger than the feature.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic