|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fox Film Chief Stacey Snider Says Current Theatrical Windows Are ‘Anachronistic’
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-02-2017 07:15 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
The mere idea of having movie theaters and overhead for those theaters, is just flat out stupid when the content you make looks the same anywhere you present it, at home or at the cinema.
You just don't get it....the difference between home and cinema is not just the presentation, it's in the WATCHING.
quote:
Theatrical will be a side show and nothing more, which is all it is today anyway. Shitty blah blah blah blah...
All of this is a huge turn off, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because they don't want to deal with any of this.
So don't give me this nonsense about the theater somehow being a great place. When you work somewhere, of course it's a great place, but you aren't the problem, your customers are. You can't change customers, they'll be assholes no matter how many times you tell them.
There you go again, not looking at the big picture. Just because the theater(s) you go to are shitty and dirty, doesn't mean all of them are. And just because YOU don't want to go to the cinema anymore doesn't mean lots of other people don't.
You CAN change customers. The people who come to my theatre know they have to behave themselves or we'll ask them to leave. So problems here are at an absolute minimum. It's just a matter of educating people, making rules and then enforcing them.
Attendance is NOT at an all time low, either. It's been fluctuating around the 1.3 billion tickets mark during the last 10 years in this country. Better movies = higher ticket sales. Last year was about the same as 2015, but significantly higher than 2014. 1.3 billion means that on average, every person in this country goes to the movies about 4 times a year.
When you consider that there are multitudes more options for people to entertain themselves now than there were even 10 years ago, it's amazing that theatrical attendance has held up as well as it has. Look at the comparison to video sales now to what they were a few years ago, to theatrical ticket sales. Video is way down, while theatrical has held its own.
If the theater you attend sucks, go find a different, better theater. And avoid the opening weekend -- then you'll minimize all the problems you cited and you'll have the experience you deserve.
There's no doubt that Netflix and its ilk are thriving, but your pie-in-the-sky of all the content providers "banding together" is an impossible dream. First, they'd never all be able to agree on enough details to make that happen, and second, there's a little thing called anti-trust laws that would keep it from happening anyway. This is why there isn't just one big TV network, even though TV has been around for over 100 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Montes
Master Film Handler
Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-03-2017 02:55 AM
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of "film" making a comeback. Guys, this is my business, I have a foundation dedicated to promoting film and re-building infrastructure. Right now I'm working on a few things that will turn the industry on it's head. It's happening and its coming very fast. Before you know it, those hateful eight projectors will be back up and running on a more regular schedule. Sure, its only 90 - 100 screen's, but it's a start and it's just the beginning.
So in one section you're telling us that our issue is that we are in the exhibition side so we obviously don't think our theaters are going to close but you're on the side of promoting film and can't see that film is dead for any mainstream purpose. When I first started posting here I was running a 5 screen art-house, I used to have a romantic view of film, we were a community gem, people surely would come out to see movies on film, good movies that had an actual plot. Guess what? AMC renovated up the street and we sunk. Digital is king now, people don't care about HOW movies are presented, they want 2 hours out of the house watching a popcorn flick. Sure you have a few people who are willing to go out of their way to see film or 70mm productions but these are always sold out because the locations are limited as are the runs. For example if you wanted to see hateful8 in miami there were only 2 locations showing it, so of course they were packed compared to the 25 other theaters showing it digitally in the DMA
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-03-2017 03:08 AM
You guys are funny...
I live in Hollywood man, we've got the best of everything. When I go to other states and visit, the theaters are way worse then here. Arclight cinema's Hollywood is probably the best theater in the whole country. Yet, it doesn't matter if the pig next to you is munching on his hot dog and spilling soda all over your feet now does it?
In terms of ticket sales... The MPAA says the ticket sales have been gradually declining since the early 2000's. From a peak of 1.5 billion to around 1.3 billion in 2016. That may not sound like a big decline, but 2016 was nearly identical to the ticket sales of 1996. So the industry is pretty stagnant and is not "growing" like the profits are. My comment about being at an all-time low (was more of a joke), references population growth data. There are more people living in this country then ever before, yet ticket sales have been nearly stagnant? So it's super important to take population into account and when you do the research, you'll see how low we really are.
In terms of one provider... they're doing it now. I can only get Spectrum where I live. If I want any content on my television, there is one choice. So it would be the same way, there would be a single payment system that people can use. A shell company that handles the processing of data. The audience pays X amount per month and the money is distributed to the makers of that content based on the viewership. It's no different then watching a movie at the cinema. There are AMC theaters all over the country, so you're basically paying AMC, who then pays the distributor and so forth. So imagine AMC being the company you're paying for the online service, only they'd have A LOT more content. At first it would only be movies, but then I'm sure over time everyone else would join the bandwagon. So it may sound anti-trust ish.... but I think it would be OK because the money would be sent directly to the distributors.
Obviously it's a pipe dream, the likelihood one company does this... is, well.. slim. I talk about it because we're discussing this very topic. I for one would pay $50/month to not have any content at home, if all I had to do was click and watch anything I wanted at any time. I think a lot of people would do the same thing and based on the profits the film industry makes right now, the numbers I'm talking about are significantly higher. It's just, someone needs to bite the bullet and make it a reality. Wish I was a millionaire cuz I'd do it.
Buck, yes I'm being facetious.. I know you guys love film, but when people come on here and say film is dead, it's not good and it makes me upset. I spend every waking moment working with film and my life revolves around the medium to a level that most people would die for. So it's FAR from dead and sure on a projectionists website, you guys are thinking mainly of theatrical... but from a filmmakers perspective, I can't do anything without good projectionists. So when projectionists say "film is dead" to me that's saying, they don't want to deal with it anymore. The proper response would be, we love film and can't wait for a revival. If you think negatively about it, then nothing will happen. It takes people who love something, to come together and make it a reality.
Mike... :sigh: I get your point about the "experience" I do, I really do. I saw Jaws during the re-release few years ago in the cinema and it was a great experience. I've seen the movie dozens of times prior but never in the cinema. That was one of the rare occasions where going to a modern all-digital cinema made sense, it was an experience. Going to your local megaplex at 2:00 on a tuesday, isn't going to give you any more experience then watching at home. The only way to really get an experience is to deal with the friday night crowds and honestly, that's why people flock to the movies on friday night, they too want that experience and I get that. So you've gotta deal with all the mess and rude people, who by the way live everywhere. Why can't people take friggen showers?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-03-2017 10:12 AM
quote:
But don't you see, the movie industry is already TV, there is no difference!
If the product is just a 2 hour TV show, why should I pay $50 per viewing to watch it? Hell, why should I even pay $5 to watch it? Why should anyone pay anything extra at all above what they're paying for a cable TV subscription or even just freaking Netflix?
Once commercial movie theaters are gone (fulfilling your wish) all we'll have is just TV shows. There's really not all that much value in TV shows, particularly 2 hour made for TV movies. All those epic movies that people love will no longer get made. No studio is going to blow $200 million on a 2 hour made for TV movie.
quote: Tyler Purcell
There are 7 billion people in the world ok? Lets say 3 billion of them consume media on a regular basis, as in go out of their way to pay for consumption. If only 500 million of those people paid $10 a month... you're looking at 60 billion dollars a year. That's 10 billion more then the entire film industry made in 2016.
You're over-estimating the world-wide value and appeal of Euro-American movies and ignoring a shit-ton of geopolitical realities with that comment.
quote: Tyler Purcell
The solution is to get more people hooked on paying a monthly fee and it's happening fast. The problem is that Netflix, Amazon and the rest, aren't banding together, they're all charging individually and that doesn't work. There needs to be one payment for everything, even if it's more money... say $30 a month, people will pay for it if they get everything.
That's not going to happen. The DOJ would never approve a merger of all streaming services offering Hollywood movies. The stock valuations of the companies involved are priced sky high, making such a merger very risky financially. The people running those different companies all have giant sized egos.
You're also forgetting why millions of people have been "cord cutting," putting up rabbit ears and getting Netflix. It's all about saving money. Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Pandora, Spotify, etc. are "all you can eat" services that provide entertainment content to consumers very cheap. People are gravitating to those services to save money.
quote: Tyler Purcell
In terms of one provider... they're doing it now. I can only get Spectrum where I live. If I want any content on my television, there is one choice. So it would be the same way, there would be a single payment system that people can use.
Cable TV is far different from any Internet-based content consumption service. It's regulated far differently and those regulations are why you have localized monopolies for traditional cable TV service pretty much everywhere. Cable TV companies have to spend a lot of money installing wire all over a city or town. So they end up being treated more like a utility. But it's a utility many customers are abandoning due to giant price hikes over the past several years.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Theatrical will be a side show and nothing more, which is all it is today anyway. Shitty digital 2k projection that's flat and uninspiring to watch. Theaters over run by horrible human beings who talk constantly, use their phones and are pigs. I have to sit in the handicapped seat by myself to watch movies today, people are so disgusting. Every time I go, I'm sitting next to someone with a huge soda, hot dog covered in crap and they're eating like a pig the entire movie. The floors are sticky, if I have to go to the bathroom, I'm disrupting an entire row of people. All of this is a huge turn off, nobody wants to go to the cinema anymore because they don't want to deal with any of this.
If nobody wanted to go to theaters anymore the theaters would already be out of business. Basically, your comment above sounds like you're projecting a very snobby attitude at movie theaters and the customers who visit them.
Also, are you disabled? If not, what kind of douchebag are you to take up a handicapped seat in a movie theater?
quote: Tyler Purcell
So don't give me this nonsense about the theater somehow being a great place. When you work somewhere, of course it's a great place, but you aren't the problem, your customers are. You can't change customers, they'll be assholes no matter how many times you tell them.
Customers are the ones paying to keep you employed. Sure, people can be thoughtless pigs, but if you're running a business you gotta do what you can within reason to keep them happy so they keep spending money at your business.
quote: Tyler Purcell
You guys are funny...
Meanwhile, you just sound like a jerk with that kind of dismissive lead-in.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I live in Hollywood man, we've got the best of everything. When I go to other states and visit, the theaters are way worse then here.
Way worse in what ways? Specifics please. On the previous page all you did was bitch about movie theaters in your own area. So I'd like to hear just how insanely worse theaters in the interior of this country can be versus the ones in SoCal.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-03-2017 03:57 PM
Tyler, the point you're missing is that some people go to the movies to see a movie on the big screen. Period. They may have access to a variety of streaming platforms and and 50" (or larger) 4K displays in their home, but they still go to the movie theatre to watch a movie on the big screen.
Part of the purpose for this is escapism. If you're at home, you still have to deal with being at home. This means the various distractions at home such as chores, email, and anything else you can easily escape from by getting out of the house. Plus most people don't have a near totally dark viewing room with a screen masked off. In fact, many people probably have a set up where they may have to deal with glare from the sun - either directly on the TV or in their field of view. Most people also don't have a full on surround system like you have in the movie theatre.
The reality is people will pay $12 a ticket to go to a movie theatre because there is a perception of added value over watching at home. But while a family of 4 might be willing to pay $75 to go out to a movie (once your factor tickets and snacks), they usually would not be willing to pay that same amount of money to watch the movie at home. Again, it's the perception of value. Given the number of people who will complain about a 25-50˘ increase in ticket prices, I can assure you the average person is not going to shell out $50 for watch a day and date pay per view. They would rather wait a few months to pay $2 for a RedBox rental, or maybe a shorter amount of time to stream on Amazon for $5-$6.
The one point where I agree with you is the mediocre movies being released into theatres. This is probably the biggest area where theatres have lost business over the last 20 years. These movies often don't create the urgency to watch them now on any platform, let alone one where they have to pay the equivalent of $10 or more per person.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-03-2017 11:11 PM
Just so you guys understand, I was the kid with the double Super 8 projectors setup with a screen in his bedroom, projecting prints of silent and sound movies for a stuffed animal audience at 9 years old. I'd usher in the stuffed animals, I'd put little popcorn down for each of them and I'd dim the lights, and start the projector. I was a master of the reel change, even though my super 8 prints didn't have markers. My entire childhood revolved around movies and the cinema. I remember as a 13 year old, my dad got me into the projection booth to see the 70mm print of Terminator 2. I already knew all about the projector and threading pattern thanks to books from the library. My dad had me point out the different components of the projector and I remember being pretty embarrassed.
Our local theater went out of business when I was very young, so where I remember seeing movies there, I never got the opportunity to work at a theater as a consequence since all the theaters around me were too far away. I worked at Blockbuster video which was the closest link I could have to the movie industry in a small rural town. I built a really decent home theater with the money I got from working and I've had great home theaters since. As a teenager my dad tried to help me get into being a projectionist, but even his connections didn't help. I was turned away because nobody believed my passion would lead to a long-term career. My dreams of being a projectionist and eventually technician, were squashed by a few older people who didn't want a kid taking their job.
I wound up becoming a filmmaker and now have a 501c3 foundation dedicated to keeping film alive. I teach teenagers and college kids how to shoot on not just 16mm, but 35mm and how to project on both formats. They learn the in's and out's of the entire workflow from start to finish, something that back in my teen's, nobody would teach me. I'm at least lucky to have connections that allow me to get hands on with projection equipment as an adult.
I only wrote this story because I'm pretty passionate about this stuff and as a filmmaker, I'm depressed to see the direction the industry is taking. However, to me (as I've said before) there is no difference between a digital signal being presented in a theater and a digital signal being shown at home. Today there really is no reason to visit the theater. As many have said, wait for home video if you wish to see new releases. The uniqueness of the cinema has disappeared now that film is gone. The only reason people still go, are the reasons ya'll pointed out above and frankly, I don't see those reasonings being able to sustain the industry through the next recession. The cost is just too great in my opinion and the studio's don't care.
So the discussion of "what's next" when it comes to first run theatrical studio content, is a critical conversation to have. Many of the big filmmakers have stopped making theatrical bound features because for the same money they can produce 10 - 12 episodes of a show and get a few years worth of paid work out of it, vs spending 5 years of their own time, begging to make a feature that goes theatrical. Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Cinemax, AMC and BBC, these guys have taken a bunch of the top filmmakers and produced stellar content with them. In a lot of ways, the content they make is better then A LOT of theatrical bound stuff. They are the future of content for better or worse, not 2hr movies that cost $200 million. So the mere thought we NEED even $100 million dollar 2hr movies, is incorrect, we don't.
My point about the cineplexes folding and the industry moving to SOME SORT OF ON DEMAND SYSTEM, is good, it's not bad. Let digital media be presented on digital displays. In fact digital theater projectors are nowhere near the quality of OLED. So in a few years with UHD content at home and people upgrading to OLED, they will actually have a better viewing device at home thanks to the industry pushing out .h265 Rec 2020 UHD media to consumers. :slaps palm on forehead: They're killing it for themselves, now there is no magic at the theaters anymore.
I would like to address a few comments made above.
One.. Bobby, yes I'm projecting a snobby attitude because what does the cinema offer me? If you paid $17.50 for a 70mm screening of a movie and everyone around you was on their phones in a sold-out house and the guy next to you smelled like a pig, barely fit in the seat and was eating a disgusting hot dog, how would you deal with it? Go ask for a refund? Whenever I go to the movies, I have the same problem. Doesn't matter what theater, doesn't matter what time of day, there is always someone annoying in the theater doing something stupid.
I'm the most respectful person you will ever meet. I don't steal handicapped seats, I make sure nobody is going to sit there and if someone does come, I will gladly give it to them. Plus at the theater I frequent, they're all assigned seating and there are literally a dozen handicapped seats. I'm the guy who will hold their piss and sit there in pain, so I don't disrupt anyone. I turn my phone off before I get into the building and I eat my popcorn before the movie starts, so I don't make any noise during the show. Model citizen I know, but I don't expect much from anyone else, I just expect a certain level of courtesy which has evidently disappeared.
I get your point about running a business, so you don't care. It's not your fault people are pigs, that people are jerks, that people are no fun to be around. It's a society problem and there is nothing you can do about it. At the same time, I use to go to the cinema 6 times a month easily, maybe more and in 2016 I went 8 times the whole year. My friends? Nobody goes anymore because they, like me, don't get the benefit. We are clearly not alone and eventually it will take a toll on the industry. I understand the content they distribute is also the problem. I already have 6 movies I would like to see in the theaters in 2017 because they interest me.
In terms of my comment related to theaters in other places. At least the Arclight has decent projection, decent sound systems, decent seats, decent food, decent parking, I mean it's the best theater in So Cal hands down. When I go other places, even the Burbank AMC, the projectors aren't aligned to the screen properly. The sound systems always have ONE blown speaker or amp, the seats aren't comfortable, the food is disgusting and the parking is impossible. I went to AMC Burbank in 2016 to see La La Land and Jackie through the academy screening program, so it was free. Even as a freebee, the screen in one theater you could see the black wall behind the screen. In the other theater, the projector was projecting on top of the screen matte quite a bit, like a few feet on all directions. The center channel was distorted on the voices and the image over all looked faint, like the lamp was about to die. This by the way, is the premiere AMC theater in the US. This is the ONLY THEATER that doesn't take gold tickets.
Now I've seen movies in Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, West Palm Beach, New York City, West Virginia, Colorado, Los Vegas, Boston, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island and up and down the coast of California from San Diego to San Fransisco. That's a long list I know and some places I only saw one movie, and all of them were cineplexes... but I haven't been impressed by anything. Every theater has it's pro's and con's, but the Arclight Hollywood has none of the con's. So even though it's not some beautiful palace, it's still a great place to watch movies. Especially the center upstairs and downstairs theater, the short and wide ones, those are excellent. The cinerama dome really is only good for film because the digital projectors don't have the proper masking (or lens) on them, so the smile box screen is always over-projected onto the ceiling and floor, which looks bad.
Mike... It's called field of view. I have a 7 foot wide screen and I sit 10 feet away from it. So in my brain, it's just as big as a screen in the movie theater. Now most people don't have this, but my digital cinema projector cost me $915 and I set it up on a few crates of laserdisc's, so this is not difficult for an average person to make happen. I've even projected on my other wall which is 13 feet across and sat around 12 feet away, it was like going to an IMAX theater, only not as crisp. I have an excellent stereo that will easily out perform a theater system for the small room I have it in. All in all my home theater cost me around $5k, but it's going on 13 years old (I did just upgrade my projector though). Today you'd spend around $4k to get the same thing and honestly, I understand most people won't spend that kind of money. Ohh and don't get me wrong, if I had a big enough place, I'd have two 35mm and 16mm projectors. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sorry for the long winded post guys, I kinda wrote this over a few hours working on something else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-04-2017 01:27 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
The one point where I agree with you is the mediocre movies being released into theatres. This is probably the biggest area where theatres have lost business over the last 20 years. These movies often don't create the urgency to watch them now on any platform, let alone one where they have to pay the equivalent of $10 or more per person.
The ever shrinking amount of time of the theatrical release window is one big factor that created that lack of urgency to see most movies on the big screen. 20 years ago if someone was curious about seeing a certain movie they needed to get to a theater to satisfy that curiosity. Otherwise they were going to be waiting about a year for it to be available to rent on VHS. Pretty big penalty for missing the movie on the big screen. The penalty isn't quite as bad today. We can thank the movie distributors for that.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I'm depressed to see the direction the industry is taking. However, to me (as I've said before) there is no difference between a digital signal being presented in a theater and a digital signal being shown at home. Today there really is no reason to visit the theater. As many have said, wait for home video if you wish to see new releases. The uniqueness of the cinema has disappeared now that film is gone.
The way you put sounds like you're placing the blame for this situation all on the movie theaters. They're not the ones who pushed for d-cinema. The movie distributors did that, as well as pushed bad standards of it (like the shitty version of 'scope we're stuck with across the board). The motivation has always been saving money and increasing cash flow. But the theaters paid for d-cinema, just like they did with widespread installs of digital surround sound and stadium seating. Now they're expected to install huge recliners, dine-in options and various premium concepts featuring giant screens, next-gen surround sound and even high priced laser projection.
Meanwhile the only thing the movie distributors can do is continue to erode the time window between theatrical release and home video release, making it that much easier for people to wait for the video and save a lot of money.
This premium day and date release model is only another cash flow improvement stunt. The movie studios have turned the retail home video sales and rental market into a disaster with their bean counting schemes. The studios deliberately undermined physical media platforms (DVD, Blu-ray) to go around brick and mortar retail partners -all in the scheme to sell direct to consumers. But guess what? Not very many people are into buying digital downloads of movies. It's not any different than watching on Netflix. So why not go with the cheaper option completely on just watch the show on a streaming service for next to nothing? The whole thing is race to the bottom economics. The bean counters will keep persisting in this nonsense until all they have is a badly struggling pay TV industry.
quote: Tyler Purcell
One.. Bobby, yes I'm projecting a snobby attitude because what does the cinema offer me? If you paid $17.50 for a 70mm screening of a movie and everyone around you was on their phones in a sold-out house and the guy next to you smelled like a pig, barely fit in the seat and was eating a disgusting hot dog, how would you deal with it? Go ask for a refund? Whenever I go to the movies, I have the same problem. Doesn't matter what theater, doesn't matter what time of day, there is always someone annoying in the theater doing something stupid.
But you said Hollywood is better than all these other icky places where we live. You have the best of everything there. Doesn't that include the customers too?
I got spoiled visiting some really good theaters living in New York City -lots of shows in 70mm (and with no up-charge on the ticket price either). I've been to other great theaters elsewhere in the country over the years. One thing is certain: the average crappy multiplex theater today is quite a bit better than the average multiplex in the early 1990's.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justin Hamaker
Film God
Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-04-2017 04:20 AM
Two more points Tyler
First, the growth of high quality cinematic series on HBO, Showtime, and streaming platforms is a welcome addition to the entertainment market. I think it's a boon for everyone to see the bar being raised. Plus, many of these stories don't lend themselves to a two our feature film. That being said, there are still plenty of high quality films being made. Usually stories which are relatively narrow in scope and don't lend themselves to a 8-12 part series.
Secondly, you have to be aware that your own standards for an acceptable viewing environment are completely different than the average consumer. Joe Blow isn't going to notice most of the things which turn you off. As long as the movie is in focus, the volume is not too quite or not too loud, and the lamp isn't flickering, the average person is far more worried about the content on the screen than the presentation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-04-2017 02:22 PM
Hey Mitchell,
No, no, the laserdisc's are basically there for looks today... the player works, but I hardly use it. Most of my sources are 1080p or 4k. The projector is capable of accepting 4k signals, but it's a 1080p DLP imager. It's just a toy for now as I wait for the laser 4k projectors to come out and drop in price. I'll invest in a laser/HDR/UHD projector in 2019 because that's kind of where the technology will stop in my eyes.
All of my sources are DTS or Dolby Digital, audio is super important to me. I have a B&W surround kit that's very good. It's lower end stuff, but I've worked really hard at making it sound the way it should. It's unfortunate the remixes of movies on BluRay isn't very good, there is some loss from theatrical to home theater in the mix for sure.
Over-all however, I'm pretty happy with my kit and so is everyone else who is privileged enough to see it working. I live in an apartment, so I can only really use it when my neighbor is away, which is unfortunate, but them's the breaks!
This is from one of the screenings I did of Interstellar where we used the 13 foot wide wall.
| 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