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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Sad: Youtube has more resolution than cinemas (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Sad: Youtube has more resolution than cinemas Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-11-2010 09:46 PM                        This has been debated in some other thread before -- but the law here covers members-only clubs too, such as the Elks, Lions, etc. because they can allow non-members in as guests. Therefore for the purposes of the law it's considered "open to the public." Let's put it this way -- I've never heard of anyone figuring a way around the law. I think that's partly because most people are vastly in favor of it.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-11-2010 09:51 PM                     Up until two years ago, it was illegal for grocery stores to sell beer in Pennsylvania. But all the big grocery store chains got their lawyers together and bitched at the government long enough and hard enough that they got a law passed which allowed them to sell beer. There were a lot of conditions attached: There is a 100% ID/carding policy. They can't sell more than 144 oz. of beer to any single customer in one sale. The beer section has to be walled off and there has to be a separate cashier. The list goes on and on. But the bottom line is that grocery stores banded together and lobbied for what they wanted and they got it. Why don't theater owners strap on a pair and do the same thing? They could certainly get laws passed that allow separate, designated smoking sections where customers have to show ID to get in. What the heck? They already have to show ID to get into R-rated movies anyway. If an older theater already has a balcony or a baby cry area that's not being used, they could convert that into a smoking section. Why not go all out and make it so customers have to show ID to get up the balcony stairs? Then theaters could have bars at the balcony concession stands. They could server beer and wine and willing adults could go there and smoke their lungs out while they watch a movie. The point I'm making is not specifically about smoking or drinking beer. It's about improving the customer experience. I don't mean "presentation." I don't mean "customer service." Those are just buzz words that people throw around at stockholder meetings, anymore. They have no meaning. What theaters need to do is to forget about digital projection or 3-D technology and do whatever it takes to make the paying customer happy, overall, so that they want to come to the theater and spend money.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-11-2010 11:22 PM                        I had a big ol' response to Randy's first post typed up on my iPod earlier today, but had to exit the browser to re-enable my internet connection. When I came back, the text I input was gone, even with "fast app switching" or whatever they call it. ANYWAY, I basically said that Randy must really have a fetish for popcorn. I do not need popcorn to watch a movie. And I said some other things about how I enjoy watching movies more in the home than in the theater most of the time, like the sound being better, me being able to control the volume, the pause button for piss breaks and whatnot. Oh, and it's far more comfortable and I don't have to deal with constant dipshits that comprise most theatrical audiences these days. I can choose my own start time and what I want to watch as well. I may have had some other points, but the theatrical experience, to me, not a huge selling point.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-11-2010 11:29 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley This has been debated in some other thread before -- but the law here covers members-only clubs too, such as the Elks, Lions, etc. because they can allow non-members in as guests. And if you had a club that didn't allow non-member guests, they'd probably make up some other silly reason to include the club as covered. Oh well.  |  IP: Logged Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 07-12-2010 12:46 AM                     Because the laws aren't written to protect the customer or member. They are written to protect the employee. This has all been discussed elsewhere.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-12-2010 01:31 AM                     I know one club back in Olympia got around that by not having employees. They only have volunteers that are in the smoking area. That satisfied the laws there but obviously YMMV.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2010 09:29 AM                     Geez!! Use the word "popcorn" five times in nearly 1,000 words posted to the same thread and, suddenly, I've got a popcorn fetish! Okay, then, any kind of snacks the customer wants to eat or drink. (You're worse than my wife, Joe! ) Whatever... The movie theater paradigm is broken. We need to do something to fix it or move on to some other thing that works. It used to be that a movie theater was a monolithic building where people used to come in, sit down and eat popcorn while they watched a movie. One or two movies played several times throughout the day. People would come to the theater, stand in line and sit in seats, all in rows, to watch whatever was on the screen. Then, in the 70's came the twin cinemas and then the quads. By the 80's and 90's we have the multiplexes. We added more auditoriums, more screens, more seats and more of everything else but the paradigm didn't change. People still stand in line, buy popcorn (or whatever other snacks they want... Joe...) then they sit in seats, all in a row while consuming said snacks and watching whatever program is on that screen. I'm sure that there is still a place for that kind of entertainment but, as an overall paradigm, it's not working anymore. From after World War II and on through the 1960's and 1970's people were happy to conform to society's expectations. They were happy to stand in line at the concession stand and sit in theaters and wait for a single showtime when the movie started. Nowadays, people are less willing to conform. The idea of sitting in a traditional movie theater seems restrictive. Many people are less willing to pay for that kind of experience. Something has to change. We still have to have a "screen" and a "projector" or some similar arrangement, even if we used individualized video displays, we'd have to have some arrangement of "view screen" to present the entertainment program. We've got to work around that. But, what if we had three or four screens, all arranged like a wheel, that played movies or other programs on a rolling schedule. Some program would begin on one of the screens, say, every hour. We could have open plan seating or some arrangement with Las Vegas style booths/tables. We can have a centrally located bar/concession stand with a lobby/gathering area in the center. The whole thing would be like a hub and spoke arrangement. People could buy one ticket for admission to any of the three or four movies. They could come and go as they please. If the same program is playing at rolling start times on two or more screens, they could move from one theater to the next if they wanted to watch a part of the movie over again, etc. I'm not saying this is the answer. I'm just throwing out ideas for consideration. Remember, when the multiplex became popular, people who came to the theater always used to joke about being able to hop from theater to theater if they didn't like the movie they were watching. But we have to have "rules" and, if people buy a ticket to one movie, they can't jump to the next. It's been something that people have wanted for a long time but theaters have not given it to the customer. The "customer experience" has suffered because the theater tries to make the customer conform to its rules too much. (Okay, I agree that we need to have "some" rules to keep things organized but we need more flexibility in those rules.) Overall, movie theaters have become inflexible, rule-minded places and too many people just aren't willing to pay money for that kind of experience anymore. Something has got to change or movie theaters will cease to exist. Inventing new technology, using digital projection, 3-D glasses, film or any other whiz-bang technology will not change this.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2010 11:00 AM                        Maybe the idea of the 2-hour movie should change. How about one-hour movies? People could go to the theatre and watch two or three shows, depending on how much time they had. The idea of a-la-carte movies might have an audience, but the chaos from people arriving, leaving, eating, drinking, etc. would probably drive any serious watchers bananas.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2010 11:23 AM                     I think a movie has to be something special to last longer than 2 hours and still hold people's interest. A 60 to 90 minute movie would probably be better for most people in our "attention deficit" society. If a movie is really engaging and has an interesting, compelling story to tell, 2 hours or more is all right but it's not every movie that needs to be so long. Most of the dreck that they throw at the public, these days, might even be improved by cutting it down to 90 minutes. So, what if we took the standard megaplex and, instead of showing 10 or 15 different movies that last 2 hours long, we showed only 5 different movies that only lasted 60 to 90 minutes but played more copies of them. There could be rolling start times every 20 minutes. Customers don't buy a ticket to a particular show time. The buy a ticket for admission to the complex and they go into whichever movie is starting next. If they show up too late for the start time of the movie they wanted to see, they just wait 20 minutes for the next one to roll. It would be more like waiting for a bus. The neat thing would be that we don't have to rebuild all our theaters to make this work. We could do it with existing movie theaters. It just involves rearranging the schedule.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2010 12:18 PM                        Or another idea: How about a two-hour show, but it contains two or three different stories? That would be perfect for kids' movies. This has been done before of course with Twilight Zone and others, but those were all "Twilight Zone" episodes. Why couldn't Pixar or somebody make a two-hour program consisting of various shorter stories? Concession sales could be increased with "intermission" sales.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 07-12-2010 12:29 PM                     I never understood why families spent so much money on concessions. Granted, I was grateful because that meant someone else was subsidizing my ticket price to some extent. Even worse than the popcorn was the money spent on candy you could get outside for a fraction of the price and do not even last that long in the theater. As far as youtube, it doesn't matter what the bitrate is at this point, as youtube is just rolling out a feature they can incorporate. It doesn't cost the user anything, so even if it doesn't offer any significant benefit because of the compression, youtube probably gets to roll out a feature onto the field for defacto live testing.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2010 10:02 PM                     YouTube gets to advertise that they have "4K video" even though 1 customer in 1,000,000 will be able to play it at 4K resolution. One customer in 10,000,000 will even know the difference. But everybody will "ooh" and "aah" because YouTube has "4K." Basically its just another scoop of bullshit on top of a veritable mountain of bullshit. It's just a way to pull the wool over the customer's eyes with no real monetary outlay on their part. It's just like the concession stand. Put a bunch of bright, shiny packages of candy, soda and popcorn out where the kids can see them. They will whine and scream until Mom and Dad buy them some. But everybody knows, even the kids know, that you can buy the same thing at WalMart for 1/10 the price. It's all bullshit advertising playing on the "Buy Now!" mentality that they stir up by making a hoopla about it.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.