Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Was theatre exhibition really that much better 'back in the day'?

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-25-2009 01:16 AM

quote: Frank Angel
We can argue about why that is, but the fact is, whatever the reason, many people simply hate going to the multiplex.

But what do they hate? How many of the things they hate are things beyond the control of the theatre? (Parking, hiring the babysitter, fighting traffic, standing in line, etc.) A cinema could be the most elegant place in the world and have all the trappings of the past and you would STILL have all of those problems -- problems which have gotten worse in areas where the population has grown.

I still think the majority of people are satisfied with the movie experience itself. The biggest complaint I ever hear about the "big city theatres" is the concession prices.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-25-2009 01:28 AM

I think the 60s here was the greatest era.
Service at all cinemas was first class and most tried really hard to provide good presentation.
The Hoyts circuit and some of the independents had installed new miracle mirror screens for CinemaScope and 4 track mag, which sounded magnificent. 1.37 films looked superb on those screens.
Other circuits had taken the economy route and were cropping Academy Format prints for "widescreen" presentation before it became the norm to shoot films that way. They stuck with mono sound but I will ignore them now just as I did then.
Occasionally there was a film break at one of the suburban cinemas or it could have been that the next reels had not arrived on the bus from the theatre they were sharing the print with. Perhaps, like me, the projectionists were lousy at cement splices.
I can't remember seeing many bad prints then but I certainly saw many when I started our own cinema. The worst was a mag print of Doctor Zhizago that had been run on standard sprockets so the edges were separating from the print.
The city had several cinemas showing 65/70 films in Roadshow presentations. They were events you took your date to.
Only one cinema did not have curtains. Drive-ins were excused.
These days, a good experience should be the norm. Projectionists have automation to get the timing right every show, platters instead of changeovers and stereo sound on every print.
One difference back then was that audiences accepted theatre management policy. A rowdy was ejected without argument. If you didn't collect your reservation an hour before the show you didn't get in. if you had a ticket for front stalls, that's where you stayed, even in an empty theatre.
The milk bar across the road provided healthy competition for the cinema kiosk. If the cinema's ice creams were outrageously priced you tried the alternative.
However, we did endure some rubbish supporting features and shorts but it wasn't polite to leave or to walk in late.
No cinemas had parking - most arrived by public transport or on foot.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 08-25-2009 04:12 AM

Right on Frank! The "Theatre going experience" is missing from most multiplexes. I don't care if the multiplex has stadium seating with high-back seats, surround sound or even a digital presentation as long as the negative aspects you and I mentioned exist todays theatres can't compare to the great single screeners of yesterday.

And Mike, the "majority of people" are not attending multiplexes today because their owners are targeting the 14 to 34 year old demographic. That leaves a large segment of the population un-served.

| IP: Logged

Don Sneed
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Texas City, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 08-25-2009 04:58 AM

Heck yea the theaters was theaters up to the 1980 when the changes starting to be made, the booth got so much simpler with automation, xenon lamp, platters, consoles, you didn't need the union projectionist anymore to trim the carbon, changeover ect, the candy girl could now run the booth, the art is gone & started to go bye, bye in the mid to late 80's when muli-screens started coming up....as for showmanship, up to the mid 80's, the theaters went out of their way to promote a movie, just stop & look at today's movie posters...Read It, Does It Say Anything About The Content Of The Movie or What The Movie Is About....NOOOO....look at a movie poster prior 1977, it not only told you the actors names but a brief description of the what the movie is going to be about, I'd seen many movie based on the poster description, Read A Poster Today, What Does It Say, The actors Names Only....Hell Yes I was part of that era, proud to be a union projectionist when a projectionist was a projectionist, not a film jockey like today who doesn't know sprocket from a pad roller!!! The theater exhibition went away at the start of the 1980's & has never return....you youngsters that never operated or been to a theater prior the 1980's, will never know what we experience not only as the projectionist but as a theater movie goer, the movie theater was great in exhibition the movie product from the time the first theater started to the 1980's, multi-screens theaters killed the exhibition !!! So to answer the question: "was theatre exhibition really that much better "back in the day'? All I can say HELL YEA, You don't know what you missed !!!

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-25-2009 08:47 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
But what do they hate?

Here's my list:

talking patrons that aren't thrown out by theatre staff
small screens
marks on the screen
constant width screens
noise from other auditoriums
"clipping" speakers producing distorted sound
pre-show commercials
dim images
out of frame images
out of focus images
scratched images
lousy movies
low-res digital projection

I agree with Scott. I think the experience at the best theatres has generally gotten worse, but also that most of the bad theatres have gotten better. (Digital projection has the exact same effect.)

Incidentally, I am able to avoid all of the items from my list except the last one at my home... (though I'd prefer to go to the cinema). [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 08-25-2009 08:58 AM

I'll overgeneralize and speak in averages here a little, but:

Sound - better today
Average screen size - better today
Seats - better today (by a looong shot)
Sight lines - better today (and some thought stadium was a fad)
Choice of movies/movies per year - better today
Concession food choices - better today
Likelihood your show will be sold out - better today (as in less likely)
Film stock - better today

Price - better back then
Individual ownership in projection quality - better back then
Showmanship - better back then
Customer behavior - better back then
Pre-show advertising - better back then
Projectionists' blood alcohol content - higher back then

That's a quick list combining my opinions with some facts. It depends on what you look for in your exhibition.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-25-2009 10:45 AM

quote: Chad Souder
Showmanship - better back then

and

quote: Chad Souder
Projectionists' blood alcohol content - higher back then

Conclusion: today's projectionists need to drink more . . . . [beer]

quote: Chad Souder
Likelihood your show will be sold out - better today (as in less likely)

Yep, if you look at NATO's numbers yearly attendance since 1970 has risen by 52% (.92 billion to 1.4 billion) but in the same period screen count has risen 270% (10,000 screens to 37,000 in 2005).

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-25-2009 12:29 PM

WRT stadium seating: I don't consider it to be an improvement over sloped floors. It has fewer truly bad seats than a good sloped-floor house, but there are fewer great seats. I'm also not a big fan of high-back chairs, but that's a personal preference.

I do agree that seats in general are more comfortable now than they have been in the past, and most theatres now have a reasonable amount of legroom.

Interesting point about increased screen counts. In downtown Boston, there have always been about thirty (commercial, first-run) screens. Now, though, those thirty (actually 32) screens are found in only two actual theatres.

As for the comment about theatres being targeted toward the younger demographic: is that a function of the theatre operation or of the films that are being shown? I don't know.

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 08-25-2009 12:31 PM

In the late '50's & '60's, going to the movies was usually trouble free. Ushers or the manager walked the room regularly. Since there was usually only one theater, everyone could pay better attention to the screen, the concessions and the patrons. Big screen films were an event, and people usually dressed up and ate dinner near the theatre (which was usually downtown...going downtown was a VERY big deal).

When the "shoebox" theatres started popping up in the suburbs, things got worse. Projection quality was often poor, screen brighness was poor and seats were very uncomfortable. They wanted you to get in and get out as fast as possible, as the lobbies were usually very small and didn't handle crowds very well. In the late 70's and most of the 80's, unless you went to a prestige theatre running 70mm or one of the rare THX rooms, the quality was often very poor. One theatre in particular, with projectors open in the lobby and many other problems, usually had very dirty prints by the second and third run.

I just visited a late 80's era AMC without stadium seating. The seats were uncomfortable and, even though this was the biggest room in the facility, the screen was barely 32' wide.

Once digital sound hit, things started to get better. Theatres paid more attention to their systems. Stadium seating started to become the norm improving sightlines and often bringing bigger screens. I can see most current films on large screens with very comfortable seating (and LOTS of legroom...thanks, RAVE).

So, like many things, going to the movies was good, then not so good, and now, good again.

Now, if they can just get that brightness up on 3-D movies, I would be REALLY happy.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 08-25-2009 02:09 PM

Getting back to projection:

Back "in the day", running projectors was an extremely labor-intensive job. However, so was engineering a television or radio plant. So was operating a telephone switchboard. So was running a ferry boat. Computers, when they did show up, filled gymnasium-sized rooms.

The only thing that approached "automation" back then was us. We ran the lights... sometimes manually, hit the curtain button, changed the masking and watched out for anything that might go wrong. Add to this the need to change between projectors several times per showing, and the monitoring and balancing of at least two arc lamps. We were VERY involved in the process, which led to the training and skills required, which led to the creation of a profession around our work... and of course, union representation in many areas.

To say that projection is better or worse today probably injects too much personality and opinion into the question. Today's automation and film handling equipment can put out an excellent product. Many theatres still use projection equipment that WAS in use "back in the day". In the hands of a competent operator, that product can be consistently excellent over the long term.

You could say exactly the same thing about running a set of E7s and magnarcs in 1968.

On the other hand, a 12 year-old could run a show with today's equipment, and probably get the fact past the audience. The same could be said in 1966. I know... I did it. However, if anything had gone wrong in the slightest back then, I would have been royally screwed. The same could probably be said today, if anyone's stupid enough to leave a kid in alone in a modern booth. Oh, wait... we do do that, don't we?

We didn't have automation, stable xenon lamps, solid state or digital anything back then. We had vacuum tubes, generators, carbon ash, temperature-sensitive lenses, acetate film, glue splices, exciter lamps, mercury vapor rectifiers and Edsels. Some of us were lucky enough to endure our owners' evaluation of Marble Carbons. Curiously, people look back on that time with a sentimentality that's hard to explain. For that matter though, I remember most of the local top-40 DJs of that era. Today, I couldn't care less who's behind the mic.

Put today's booth, appropriately equipped, in the hands of someone who knows what he/she's doing and I'd put the presentation up against anything we could have done back then. Everything else can be debated as "moviegoing experience" and nostalgia.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 08-25-2009 02:27 PM

I find that image quality is often better today than in the good old days. This because the lamps have stable brightness, the film stock is better and lenses are vastly improved. Also, the sound is much better than the optical sound we most often had. (Hell, I remember showing roadshow of "Nicolas & Alexandra" in 35mm optical! No [bs]

at the Apex Theater in DC)

However, out of frame starts, soft focus, blaring sound and out of frame splices all detract from the quality of the experience today.

I like stadium seating because no one can block my view of the complete screen. I like the fact that most films are in some stereophonic format. I like that at my local theater the screen illumination is uniform end to end and top to bottom.

I remember in the good old carbon arc days the screen sometimes had a halo effect from the focus of the carbon trim. I also remember when lamp feed motors would vary their speed throughout the day because of consumer demand on the electrical grid. This would cause lamp trim to vary and subsequently the image intensity until the operator could get it adjusted properly. Lamps running on generators were immune but rectifer supplies were particularly prone to this problem.

So was it better in the good old days? Presentation showmanship definitely was, but if one could eliminate my pet peeves of today, today's presentation quality would win by a long shot.

To my old IA buddies; Sorry if I committed heresy but I gotta call it like I see it.

One last comment -- I won't even get into customer behavior today which IMHO causes lots of lost potential revenue.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-25-2009 02:45 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
As for the comment about theatres being targeted toward the younger demographic: is that a function of the theatre operation or of the films that are being shown?

My opinion is, it's neither. It's a function of the films being MADE.

We can show movies geared to the 'underserved' older crowd, but with rare exceptions they gross far less than a movie catering to the people who go to movies.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 08-25-2009 03:43 PM

As much as I bitch about theaters, the moviegoing experience still tops the 80s era of horrible multiplexes. I think the 90s was the best in the last 25 years in terms of theater ownership trying to be improve their product(at least with the digital sound, initial attempts at trying to be THX certified on a larger scale, bigger auditoriums). Sure 70MM declined in the 90s, but the average multiplex in the suburb seemed to improve in terms of screen size.

| IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 08-25-2009 03:47 PM

I would say Mike that it is a combination of things. The corporate big boys' bookers buy only the films that appeal to that demo which are the ones being promoted by Hollywood. There are other films being made all around the world (our neighbors in Canada make some of the best with England close behind) but the corporate bookers are just not very creative. No theatre will succeed playing films only for the older crowd. But we need to throw them a crumb once in a while. It amazes me that corporations haven't figured out they can be just as successful serving the entire community rather than depending on a limited demographic to keep up their bottom line.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-25-2009 04:15 PM

quote: From the Inglourious Basterds review thread
Regal believes "starting in frame is not important, thats what the framing knob is for." Quote from one of their regional trainers. No kidding.

Well, although I cannot say for certain, I'm pretty sure that this sort of lame training never existed. If it's shit in the training period, it'll be 99% guaranteed to be shit when they're on their own. [thumbsdown]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.