Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: idiot moviegoers

This is topic idiot moviegoers in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000153

Posted by Keith Richardson (Member # 97) on 07-22-1999, 09:26 PM:

Why are people so stupid. When someone comes to a movie and it is raining, why do they have to bit*h when they can't get in? They must know that there are going to be a lot of people wanting to get into the same movie.
Tommrow, Inspector Gadget opens at my theatre. If I have to deal with someone complaining to me because they don't get in, I will kill them. Literally. It is supposed to rain where I am, and Although the day seems to go by faster when we're busy, I hate the idiot movie goers that are always complaining to me for their stupidity.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-22-1999, 10:01 PM:

Just tell them to enter the door marked E-X-I-T

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-1999, 11:45 PM:

Welcome to customer service!

Just remember, the theater is on "private property, privately owned and privately managed"...get it? ...and there's the exit Sir.

Whoever came up with the slogan "the customer is always right" had obviously never worked in customer service.

Posted by Brian Paymer (Member # 57) on 07-23-1999, 04:47 AM:

The worst part of it all is having the regional people come to my theater and preach about customer service with staged customer problems and how to solve them. The fake problems and solutions never resemble the real confrontations we must deal with. Stupid customers I can handle but stupid regional people need to come work back at the theater level for a week to see what it's really like now that there is more than two theatres under one roof.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-23-1999, 05:29 AM:

Actually,Brian, that is a very good idea indeed. I always hated the way the corporate people make decisions concerning the entire company and yet they don't even really know what goes on. They just see the numbers. If they were in the trenches like the rest of us, maybe they would think differently.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-08-1999, 12:20 PM:

I havn't been to a theater in ages, until last night. I saw South Park along with hundreds of others. I am amazed at the number of pagers, and cell phones that went off during the film. One asshole behind me got calls regularly, and sat there talking like he was at home.

The print looked rough already. There are platter scratches throughout, and the dirt around the splices is awful. I think the xenon lamp is old, because the whole movie had a blue tint to it. The stereo sound kept cutting out, and I would notice people yapping in the booth.

I saw Fantasia at the same theater years ago. It looked blue too. Is it me, or is this UA theater run by idiots?

Bruce

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-08-1999, 08:37 PM:

Which specific theatre did you go to? Whenever you have a bad movie experience, or a really good one, it helps to name the particular theatre so it can develop a good or bad reputation. It does seem odd that South Park is still playing at any movie theatre with hundreds in attendance. Was this a discount theatre?

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 08-08-1999, 08:50 PM:

Moviegoers are like children or dogs; you have to train them or they pee on the floor. (Come to think of it, so do some moviegoers!)

We have a manager stand in front of our house each night, say "Hi!" to the nice people, tell them something about the program to come, and then we tell them how to behave. No cell phones or pagers, turn off your goddam f*cking watch that beeps the hour ("You are the only one in this theatre that wants to know when your hour is up!" is how we say it.), and if someone or something is bothering you, come out of the auditorium and tell us. We'll make it right.

What ever became of the personal touch or telling folks the proper behaviour? Look, people really want to be told what to do. That's why we put them in real lines rather than a French queue (a funnel of people using their elbows and pushing to be first).

Just be ready to live up to what you say. On the other hand, when you throw someone out of your theatre who has been disturbing people by talking out loud and won't shut up, you've made a bunch of friends of the people who stay, for the life of your theatre.

Manage dammit, that's the job. We're in the service business, so let's give good service.

Posted by Michael Arlt (Member # 55) on 08-09-1999, 01:41 AM:

I used to be a steady movie goer, not any more. I Live in South Florida and I don't know if it's a local thing or if it's done any place else. I'm sick of hearing STUPID IDIOTS WHO YELL AT THE #@*^% SCREEN. It's not fun having Tinitus in my Right Ear and having some moron wailing away in the seat in back of you (Like I encountered while watching The General's Daughter). It doesn't matter which Film it is: Patch Adams, Varsity Blues, South Park,or Titanic theres always some Asshole who has to yell at the screen because he/she wants to be funny, it's anoying and obnoxious. Thats why the Wometco on 163rd Steet in North Miami Beach is gone and likewise for the old Skylake $2.00 Palace on Miami Gardens Drive is History, Now the Idiots all converged on the Movico in the California Club Mall and the new AMC in Aventura Mall which is pricy to get in ($8.00) and I think it's to keep out the Riff-Raff. I went there to see South Park a Month ago and it was a screamfest, It got so bad the Theater managers had Policemen escort out the noisy patrons (Most of them sat in the back) out of the theater. I enjoy the drive-in at times when the weather is right, now (My Guess) the same jerks who yell in the theaters all blow their horns at the drive in. I was watching The Waterboy the last time I was at The Thunderbird Drive-in in Sunrise, and horns were going off during the slow parts, you could also hear them blasting from other screens, I Talked to a consessioner about that and she said "They dind't like the movie so they blow their horns" I thought I was stuck in a Traffic Jam. Things like this make me wait for P.P.V.

[This message has been edited by Michael Arlt (edited 08-09-1999).]

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 08-09-1999, 10:03 AM:

Jim,

I'm not sure which chain you're referring to, but the chain I used to be employed by had very strict rules about "never take on the customer". You were pretty much limited to "yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, would you like a free pass...".
If you asked someone to stop talking during the show, you were really taking a chance they might complain to the home office about you. It was an extremely stressful environment and that chain still has a huge manager turnover in just about all their locations. The location I managed has gone through 3 more managers since I left over 2 years ago. One location had 4 management changes in a one year period.

Years ago, when I was an usher, I once had a patron complain that the crowd was being treated like cattle. Well, when you sell out a 270 seat house hours before show time and they start lining up an hour before show time...what do you expect? Of course I actually said, "We're just trying to keep the exit clear for those leaving the show, so that we can clean the auditorium quickly and get you all in there."

Or you get the ones that say "I (used to) work in customer service..." Well, buddy, until you've worked at a place that moves over a thousand people out, cleans, puts a thousand back in and does it within payroll budget, in under 2 hours, you have NOT worked in customer service.

Or one of my all time favorites: The line waiting for the doors to open in the morning. People, there is a perfectly good sidewalk outside, why are you lining up in the street?

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-09-1999, 05:41 PM:

An answer to the remarks made earlier by me about a certain UA theater is wrong. This theater is owned by a small group of local people who were upset when I told one of them I had talked about their presentation on this site. I have been given several free passes, and an invitation to come back. I think that this was the tip of the iceberg, as my friend that works there told me that the owner had a long meeting with the manager today.

UA used to operate this place years ago when I saw Fantasia there.

South Park had around a hundred people there when I saw it.

I will go back later and see if there is any improvement in presentation.

Bruce

Posted by Dana Stutzman (Member # 209) on 11-05-1999, 04:09 PM:

Are there any theaters anymore that have 'crying booths'? I worked at a small theater once that had one row of seats in a glass walled enclosure (with speakers). This was provided to people with crying infants so they could still enjoy the show.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-06-1999, 03:45 AM:

Three of our locations (Sebastopol Cinemas, Sonoma Cinemas, and Tiburon Playhouse) have selected screens with 'private viewing booths' where people with infants and very young children can watch a movie without bothering others...

Aaron

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-06-1999, 06:51 AM:

The worst kind of idiot movie-goers I encounter are the ones who believe they know something about film projection. Some of my favorite comments are "Your tracking is off."(as if we're using VHS) and "I was in the restroom and missed something, could you rewind the movie a couple of minutes?"(as we all know, rewinding film through a centerfeed by hand is extremely laborious and slow). I don't pretend to know how to do these people's jobs, why do they feel compelled to "instruct" me?!?

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 11-07-1999, 12:02 AM:

A manager I use to work for once asked me to rewind film on a platter after a fire alarm had interrupted the show. I told him I couldn't do it, so he went and did it himself! It took forever though.

On a similar occasion, when a fire alarm had interrupted shows, a customer marched into the booth and asked me to rewind the film. I pointed to the platter and explained how the film actually comes out of the center. He looked very puzzled for a few moments and left. But I learned a very valuable lesson that night: Keep the booth door locked at all times!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-07-1999, 03:00 AM:

A friend of mine told me one time a guy came into the booth and said, "There's something wrong with your 'metamorphosis' lens."
Turned out the masking had gone back to flat during a scope film.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 11-07-1999, 12:18 PM:

With regard to rewinding film, has anyone ever tried simply unthreading, backing some film off the platter (hopefully onto a clean surface), and rethreading to an earlier point in the movie? I tried this the last time a movie shut down, and I bet the audience was happy that the movie had been "rewound" 10 seconds.

Note: by "backing film off the platter", I meant the takeup platter.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-07-1999, 04:38 PM:

While backing some film off the platter would be a nice thing to do, I don't think it is that easy. First, whatever caused the breakdown has to be fixed. You'd then have to release the tension on the take up, unthread the projector, and pull the film back. Personally, I feel that's pretty hard on the film for a 'one time gain.' Something would be required to collect up at least 20 feet of film, because it would take too long to actually lay the film back onto the platter payout deck. Rethread and start- opening the zipper and turning on the sound without waiting for the 8 second delay most automations have at start. I'll guess and say that to back off without treating the film roughly and restart- that alone would take 3-4 min.

I think that this is just an example of the flexibility that is lost with platters.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-1999, 06:46 PM:

I think it is pointless to try to rewinbd such a short amount of time. If I "rewind" then it is to the very beginning of the print. Our awesome Christie CA-21 automations sometimes start exactly an hour early from when the actual show is supposed to start. This usually goes unnoticed until 10 minutes before the real start time. I simply unthread the projector, flip the portion that has been taken up, and dump it back on the feed out platter. No need to cut the film or get it dirty. Film starts on time from the start with moments to spare. I also do this after a fire alarm or power outtage if they last long enough to cancel the current shows.

Posted by Stephen Winner (Member # 8) on 11-07-1999, 09:51 PM:

I'm sure glad I'm running reel-to-reel here...easy to rewind. We normally keep the booth door unlocked here, and opened slightly. It kinda encourages people to come up and take a look at our vintage equipment...which we enjoy showing off!

I had a projectionist from one of the Regal's come up and tell me a story about him traning a promoted usher on building up films to a platter. His fault was not screening the film after the rookie built it up. He had spliced reel 2 out of frame. This required stopping the show twice to re-thread. Rewinding was out of the question being on a platter, so the problem had to be fixed after-hours when they could screen the print.

Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 11-08-1999, 01:24 AM:

That's AMC. Had to be fixed after hours? Had to stop the projector twice?

I would have, depending on how far the splice got onto the platter, either fixed it right then(only if the projector had to be stopped to get the show back in frame, But that would not have happened since all frame knobs would be centered) or fixed it durring the intermission.

Come to think of it, I would not do either since I would have made sure when I built the show up that it was in frame!!!!

------------------

Scott

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-1999, 03:46 AM:

With a platter, the easiest thing to do is stick a few of the large 4" Technicolor cores in the roll during takeup where the misframed splice comes. Depending on your projector, you might be able to simply crank the framing knob while the movie is running instead of stopping it (some projectors will resize the lower loop and start scratching if the framing is adjusted). Then after the movie is finished running, pop those cores out in those two spots, pull a bit of film out of the roll (because it will be loose there) remake the splice and drop it back in.

All day they ran without fixing this??? At worst case, it could've been fixed the second show when the operator knew where the bad splices were.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-08-1999, 04:20 PM:

Rewinding a platter is like putting toothpaste back into the tube! It can be done but believe me, you don't want to do it unless you HAVE to!

I was playing Phantom of the Opera here at M.H. College. We played it silent and hired a live orchestra to play the score. (I Musici de Montreal)

Well, the place was packed (850 seats) and the fire alarm goes off in the middle of the movie. We had to "dump" the place!

At $20 a ticket, of course we had to rewind it! AND I had to re-sync the orchestra to the film! (The conductor didn't speak English and I don't speak French -- You should have been listening in on the 'Clear-Com'!!!

I had to literally inch the film backward onto the platter, all the while trying to read the title cards off the film. I'd read them off to another guy who'd translate into French. The conductor would check his score, which had the title cards written down on it and say, "oui" or "non". He'd read out his title cards from the score and they'd be translated to me and I'd have to try to find it on the film.

It was a real [rot13]ZBAXRL SHPX[/rot13]!!!

Of course, you know that there are no 'original' prints of Phantom left and the ones that ARE left really SUCK! This one was about ad brittle as tissue paper. I broke it at least 3 times trying to rewind it. It literally crumbled in your hands! (No, it wasn't nitrate. I took a piece of it outside and flame-tested it)

I could go on but suffice to say that night was one of my worst horror stories to date!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-08-1999, 07:51 PM:

You guys actually try to rewind film (on platters, no less!) when something goes wrong? I never did, mostly because I tend to think that audiences would rather miss a few seconds of film if it means that the picture gets back on screen faster. Most of the time, I was running 6000' reels, which are a bit awkward to remove from the projector, carry over to the rewind bench, and then re-mount on the projector (without getting film on the floor , of course), particularly if one has to do all of this in a hurry. Fortunatley, things rarely went so wrong that the show needed to be stopped, but my own gut feeling was that the #1 priority was to get the film running as quickly as possible while avoiding damage to equipment and film. Rewinding would be nice, but it's not a big enough deal to make me want to spend several minutes to do it.

Posted by Ed Johnson (Member # 94) on 11-08-1999, 09:44 PM:

Here's one that I just remembered:

Last june I received a complaint from a customer that the picture quality was "unacceptable" in the theater where he was watching SW-Episode One. This was after the movie had been out for only 4 or 5 weeks and our prints all looked pretty good. Because of this I assumed that the picture was not focused correctly. After watching the movie for a few moments I couldn't determine any problems at all-- it was quite sharp and it looked as good as it did when we first got the print. I told this to the customer and he replied, "Look how blurry it is at the left of the screen." (He pointed at the background of a scene where the camera was focused on the foreground-- the blurryness was just the effect of the depth of field of the camera lens.) He then went on to say, "This picture isn't sharp at all. For movie that being played in 70mm, it almost looks like you guys are cheating me and showing it in 35mm!"

After that he just walked back to his seat. I didn't get to explain to him that it was, in fact, a 35mm print that we were showing and that Episode One was being shown everywhere that way.

It was one of the stranger complaints I've received...

------------------
Ed Johnson
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-10-1999, 10:12 PM:

Well, I USUALLY don't rewind but there were a couple of things going on.

1) Tickets were $20 a crack! -- To pay the orchestra, mostly. The place was sold out (850 tickets) I would have been STORMED if I didn't

2) This theatre doesn't have cut-offs from the fire alarm. It took a while for me to figure out what the hell was going on. Probably about a minute. I've never seen the fire alarm in this bldg. before. My mind was on the film. Believe me, this film was BAD!
There's no horn in the booth. I couldn't hear it over the noise.

3) The orchestra guys obviously didn't have time to mark their places on the way out the door. Remember, I had to help a French-Speaking conductor re-sync an entire orchestra!

Posted by Daniel J. Durtschi (Member # 212) on 11-13-1999, 03:09 AM:

My worst experiance ever with customer service was when I was working Head Projectionist,and also manager at the same time at a 12 plex. It just so happened that our fire alarm malfunctioned and went off. I was working manager at the time and my general manager went to go hide in the office because she couldn't handle it. So I was left by my self to handle almost 1,000 pissed off customers. Believe me I never wanted to be up in the booth so much in all my life. They were all out side and trying to talk to me at once wich didn't work. So I finally organized the situation and all the customers went home happy. Also there was one of our general manager's spies in the crowd and he reported that I did a good job with handling the situation. This goes to show you that you never know who's watching. So always do your best when it comes to handleing customers. When you've done your best to make them happy, thats all you can do, and then you can give them the boot.

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 11-13-1999, 09:53 AM:

I try to do my best with people when I work the floor,but I'll only warn them once...then the manager or the police can escort them out. One person leaves mad, the other 2 or 3 hundred goes home happy.

I remember the time Titanic broke. Our house seats almost 600, and wasn't sold out, but was pretty full. I was in the manager's office off from the lobby. (I could hear the film from here) I paused mid conversation when I heard that "hum" from the theater speakers. (you know the one that means-check projector-film broke) I left for the booth when a kid meets me at the concession stand to tell me the film broke. My manager and I went to the booth-saw a wrap-and decided to salvage the show. (last 25 min-where Rose is on the wood floating in the ocean) He brought up the house lights,and I went in and calmly told the crowd we would have the film back on the screen in 5 minutes. If anyone needed to speak to the manager,he would be available after the show. To my amazement all but two boys sat quietly in their seats and watched the rest of the show my manager and I had to babysit to the end. The two boys were waiting in the lobby and wanted refunds (Titanic wasn't their kind of movie to be honest with us) so we gave them readmits and they went home happy.

Moral-try to be upfront and honest-make no excuses-and take action as needed to keep the people coming back.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-18-2005, 11:57 PM:

It has been 1924 days since the last post.

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 02-18-2005, 11:57 PM:

This thread matched best the bitch I've got tonight.

Do people NEED to be told to complain about disruptive kids during the show and not afterwards?

I had two women come up to me AFTER the movie had let out and said "This is why we go to (another town) to see a movie!! Those kids giggled and whispered through the whole movie!!" I told them that they should have come to the lobby and said something during the show when the problem was happening. They said, "Then they (the kids) would know who complained about them." Are they serious?! Son of a bitch! These are fucking 13 year old girls we're talking about!! Are they really that scared of young girls? I kindly explained that we did 9 different checks in the auditorium and there were never any disruptions while we were in there (of course). So I apologized and offered passes. Then she starts in on how I ruined their evening and all, so I immediately offered a refund to end the subject but also explained that she owes it to the theatre and herself to complain during the movie if she has a problem with anything so the situation can possibly be rectified.

Why is it always the chicken shits that get pissy AFTER there's nothing anybody can do about it?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-19-2005, 03:04 AM:

quote:
Do people NEED to be told to complain.......during the show and not afterwards?

..People don't like the finger pointed at them for squealing and in fear of taking responsibility, but find it easy in transferring it to the obvious who is wearing some sort of "target" that represents...THE ONE in CHARGE!

We have a 'mean' boss who doesn't put with anything like that and will boot them out of the premises.

Like I was gone for a few days at one of my theatres, and came back on the Thursday night "make and break" episode, and a couple came out after the show was over and mentioned that this one feature was "Fupped Duck" during the last HOUR of the movie and wanted repremandation. Found out that a splice between reels 3 and 4 wasn't made very well, had stretched some and let loose in the gate to go out of frame at the change.

Why didn't these idiot people (they were on something anywho real bad...) come out the auditorium immediately and mentioned of the out of frame movie, instead of "yelling" to the boss who wouldn't give them back their money anyway and ordered them out, or he'll call authorities for their rant behaviour?

-Monte

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-19-2005, 06:12 PM:

For many people, it is not worth the inconvenience to get out of their seat and miss part of the movie to complain, especially if they are with a group. This is especially bad if the theatre is packed and the seats are arranged so that the cannot get out without inconveniencing everyone between them and the aisle.

This behavior is not "idiocy," it is merely a different prioritization.

--jhawk

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-20-2005, 03:58 AM:

I am with Jhawk on this one. It is not the customer's responsibility to have to play usher, manager, theatre police or the attentive projectionist. That's management's job. The reason Monte's patron came out after the fact and was irate on top of it was because there WAS NO SERVICE in the theatre. He rightfully felt that he shouldn't have to come out to tell management something the theatre should be on top of to begin with.

It used to be that even in neighborhood theatres there was an usher or "matron" who stayed in the theatre for the entire show. No one needed to become the room "whistle blower" on rowdy behavior with all the inconvenience that entails, as John pointed out....leaving your seat, disrupting everyone in your isle, FINDING someone in charge (sometimes an impossible feat) and then hoping that the manager or whoever will actually throw the asshole out rather give him a "warning" only to have him then know who the snitch was and abuse that person for the rest of the show). No one had to find some to tell that the picture or sound was bad -- that was the job of the projectionist to see that stuff as soon as it occurred and correct it usually before a patron ever feels the need to "get up to find someone." Customer Service used to mean that management did all that -- no one had to tell them.

Customer Service meant that there was actually someone in the booth that knew how to deal with simple things like an out-of-frame image or a sound roller that was not closed, because that someone was monitoring the screen and listening to the sound.

And there is proof that when film presentation and theatre operation was indeed a craft and not an assembly line operation in the days of single screens -- it's simple....the proof is that for my entire childhood, which consisted of lots of movie going in the late 50s and 60s, I never heard anyone, neither youth nor oldth, say they hated going to the movies. Never. And as much as Joe R and Brad M will tell you that the idea that in those days movie going had an aura of magic around it is so much crap and megaplexes give better presentation than the single screen theatres of the Golden Age of Movies Palaces ever did and that there is nothing magic about it, the fact remains that today in the era of the godzillaplex, no one has to look very far to find lots and LOTS of people who have nothing good to say about the present day movie-going experience, regardless of how good a show might be run technically.

We can probably go on for days comparing megaplex operation and how it can give better picture and sound than you could ever get in the single screen theatres of the 50s and 60s, but obviously there are other factors that come into play and which seem to have gone missing from the cinema factories of today. Yeah, I know the anti-romantics will poo-poo the idea that the movies back then were magic, but you know what? they sure aren't magic today, no matter how good the picture and sound. Evidently as simple a thing as having an usher and a matron standing in the back of the theatre to quickly deal with disruptive behavior as they did in single screen operation means a lot more to patrons than getting a perfectly balanced, 1/6th octave voiced B-chain. We all know it's a trade-off. Management wants to run it as cheaply as possible with as few people as possible. If that means patrons have to police their own room, so be it. If they have to wait 20 minutes before someone can find a human being who knows what you are talking about when someone says the picture is out-of-frame, so be it. But not having those things may very well mean patrons are going to find moviegoing such a chore and magic-less, well, so be it. But let's not blame it on the moviegoer if he is less than pleased that his chair was being kicked for 2 & a half hours by some acne-dotted ass-wipe who is trying to impress his equally brain-damaged "possie." Let's not fault these moviegoers because they don't find this experience "magic" any longer. And it can all be put at the feet of management. Perhaps theatre owners will may wake up sooner rather than later to the fact that those once coveted "idot" moviegoers are going to spend a couple of thousand dollars on their home "theatre" where they are sure to create their own movie magic perfectly suited to their likes.

Posted by Chris Brown (Member # 2800) on 02-20-2005, 01:09 PM:

Frank,

I semi-agree with you about booth issues at least. I've always made it a practice of walking up and down the booth when I have nothing else to do, just checking sound and picture quality, checking rollers, etc. Problem is, at least in my case, that I can't be up the for the duration of every show. During breaks I have to go down and watch the floor while the floor mgrs do cash pulls. We obviously do our best to make sure that little issues like misframes and such are corrected ASAP, but that's not always possible.

As far as other things going on during the theatre, there is no way to keep tabs on what's going on in each auditorium at every moment. Working at a 13 screen theatre, there is simply no feasable way to do this, as nice as it would be. We have at least 2 checks done per show, and obviously if someone comes out to complain we go in and check it out. But having someone to sit and monitor each auditorium is impossible to pull off. This is why in a lot of instances, we have to rely on the customer to make us aware of these situations so we can quickly correct them. There is just simply no other way most of the time. If there were, it would be great; if a customer having to come out during the show and missing some of the show can be avoided, great. But sometimes, that is what is necessary to correct some issues that may arise.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-20-2005, 02:46 PM:

Chris, you are right. As much as I might lament the fact that things aren't the way they used to be, I am a realist. I know that management will never hire enough ushers to cover every theatre in a plex. It's not because they can't -- they are allowed to deduct the house "nut" right off the top of the gross ticket sales. They could just as easily include an usher for each theatre as part of that house nut, but why would they do that when they can pocket that money instead? It's all about cutting corners as so many business do (not only exhibitors) in order to make more profit.

We all know how much we hate hearing that recording --"All of our service representatives are busy at the moment, but your call is important to us....." And I yell back, "Yah, but not important enough for you to hire a couple of more freakin service representatives, is it?" So theatre owners are not the only ones who have adopted the how-much-can-I-get-away-with-and-still-not-get-sucker-punched-by-my-next-customer business plan. But theatre owners may find that kind of approach may hurt them in the long run a lot more than it hurts other types of service oriented businesses.

Years ago when a theatre chain ran 300 single screen theatres, they had an usher and a matron in each one, not to mention a projectionist for EACH screen. They deducted a house nut for each of those single screens and that included the salary for those ushers, matrons and projectionists. There is no reason why still can't do at least some of that. The thing is, the very nature of the multiplex and the reason for its existence as opposed to the single screen is that it allows consolidation and elimination (there's a joke in there, but it's too easy). The real question is, how much can you consolidate before good economics turns into bad custom service and lower and lower customer satisfaction? How much can be cut before the whole thing begins to loose money and implode on itself?

Problem is, there is a lag-time before you are able to see a dip in the profit line; customer dissatisfaction takes time to kick in and a long time to recover once it becomes obvious. The real crisis will be if by the time the profit level drops significantly enough for some exhibitor corporate bean-counter to say, "gee, our customer satisfaction is so low that we are loosing money," those customers may be forever lost. Trying to change their entire corporate culture (if that is even possible) and method of operation at that point in time may be way too late for any recovery.

In the past, the entire industry saw a threat that stole patrons from theatre seats -- it was TV. They reacted to it by creating a bigger and better movie-going experience. Problem today with the multiplex is that what's driving patrons away is the theatre experience itself -- and IMHO, the industry is making no concerted, substantive effort to recapture those people who now openly say they "hate going to the movies" -- read: they "hate going to movie theatres, unless anyone actually thinks D-Cinema is anything that will recapture those people.

Brad keeps saying the patrons don't care what the theatre looks like as long as the picture and sound are perfect. And I say, no, they want more than that. It's like saying people won't care how unpleasant a restaurant atmosphere is or how bad its service as long as the food is perfect....that somehow no one will notice that there are no table cloths or that the floor is not clean or that the waiter serve them and is never seen again. It's the WHOLE experience that people go out for, not just one aspect of it.

Whereas before the ENTIRE industry circled the wagons to stop the hemmorage to TV; the studios developed 3-D, Cinerama, Todd-AO, CinemaScope, stereophonic sound, etc. A real problem today is that the studios don't seem to give a hoot about what happens in the theatres because they recoup their investment from markets other than theatre exhibition; they can sell their product in what used to be called the "ancillary" markets, except today those markets account for more profit than theatrical sales, and it looks like those two lines on the graph are going to continue to diverge. And with that the studios will worry less and less about the exhibitor, who doesn't even seem to notice that it's his very own business practices which may eventually make him irrelevant.

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-20-2005, 03:04 PM:

Good points about customer service Frank.

Quite a few employers need to be more aware about the effective balance of proper customer service versus the need for cutting corners. This also relates to other topic postings such as crowd control. I've noticed more than a few theaters that have out of control crowds on the weekends and have far too few employees to be able to deal with it effectively.

At a minimum this causes problems with cross-overs or even a bit of a rowdy teenage crowd. At the other end of the spectrum it could cause a problem similar to the events which occured at the Lowes in the Pittsburgh are not too long ago.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2005, 03:13 PM:

Frank you seem to have a real problem interpreting my posts.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-20-2005, 07:43 PM:

The problem with the "house nut" is that it simply is not a realistic way of figuring expenses. In my 5 years in the theatre ... we've only paid the "magic " 90-10 ONCE (Ray - opening weekend).

The film companies set your minimum film rental as the GREATER of 90% AFTER house allowance or 70%.

If I have $3,000 in house allowance ... I have to gross over $12,000 for the week to make my house nut.

$12,000-$3,000=$9,000*.9=$8,100

$12,000*.7=$8,400.

So, even at $12,000 ... I'm paying the 70% MINIMUM.

If every film that was relases grossed $12,000 or more ... I'd be one happy camper ... and scheduling an usher for every auditorium would not be a problem.

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 02-20-2005, 09:19 PM:

While there are pertinent points made here, my original post said that I had done no less than 9 auditorium checks. When we do an auditorium check, we take a seat and "watch" the movie for at least 5 minutes each time. Simple math says that's 45 minutes spent in each auditorium. Most of the time, that's damn near half the length of the movie. Also, note that the complaint was giggling and whispering. Some people like to find something (a lot of times anything) to complain about. Now in a 300 seat auditorium that has 55 people in it, if WHISPERING is that much of a distraction, simply move to another seat.(BTW, the offending teenagers were sitting in the right rear corner, NOT near the best seats by a long shot and these ladies were sitting immediately in front of them.) The way I see it, for an usher to ferrite out a whisperer is going to be a bigger distraction than the whispering. I've never had a complaint because of a flawed presentation, damaged print, equipment malfunction, or unkind treatment. I've never cancelled a scheduled show for any reason. I take great offense to the insinuation that I provide poor customer service because I failed to remove and prosecute these fiends known as the 13 year old whisperers. I'm sure that even back in the glorious "good old days" the usher or matron couldn't catch everything that went on in those auditoriums and someone would still complain.

Now, is saying that a patron shouldn't have to complain at all kind of like saying to the doctor, "I'm paying you, so you tell me where I hurt."?

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-20-2005, 09:45 PM:

Scheduling an usher should not be based upon movie sales/receipts only. Whatever happened to all of the money which is made from the concession area?

If there aren't enough ushers that could end up in the theater not being cleaned properly- definately a presentation issue.

I always like the ten and eleven theater megaplexes that WRONGLY believe that they can operate the place with only three staff people- including management! Wonder what happens if someone calls off from work (or even a no-show), or has to leave work early. I guess that the management and/or ownership doesn't happen to have any type of plan of what to do if anything out of the ordinary happens.

There has to be a better way than to operate with the minimum of skeleton crews.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-21-2005, 11:39 AM:

quote: Scott Balko
I take great offense to the insinuation that I provide poor customer service because I failed to remove and prosecute these fiends known as the 13 year old whisperers. I'm sure that even back in the glorious "good old days" the usher or matron couldn't catch everything that went on in those auditoriums and someone would still complain.

Scott, I was only speaking in generalities pointing out that the move from single screen operation to multiple screen cinemas encouraged some down-sizing that in many places one might make the observation that it has gone beyond what is economical to what is detrimental to good customer service. It is not inherent that this be the case, but unfortunately in my experience it is what does happen more often than not. I was not saying that you provide poor customer service.

I once needed to complain about a sound that was obviously being played on a soundhead that was misthreaded -- this in a "flag-ship" theatre of a major chain in NYC for a major re-release engagement of 2001. When it finally became clear that no one was going to fix it, I got up to find some one....anyone to deal with it. I literally walked all over the theatre....lobby, box office, and could not find not a single solitary human being anywhere. It was as if aliens had come down while the patrons were watching the film and had sucked up the theatre personnel. Granted, it was the last show of the night, nevertheless, I still say this is a good example of understaffing to the extreme. And lots of chains do it.

quote: Brad Miller
Frank you seem to have a real problem interpreting my posts.

Brad, didn't you once say that people don't come to the theatre to see curtains and room design but to see the film and the quality of the image and sound? You have on occasion made it known that you are not a fan of large single screen theatres and that your presentation is better than any single screen would have been in the era of the movie palaces (given the sound problems and image keystoning in most of those older, large theatres, I don't disagree).

If I am misinterpreting that, then I apologize. All I am saying is that I do believe that ambiance is part of the entire package and I would go even further in that factors other than presentation can significantly impact the experience negatively, no matter how good presentation values might be. Proof of that is that people routinely pay gobs and gobs of extra money for ambiance and amenities. And as I pointed out, even more proof that amenities (we have been calling it customer service) are held in very high regard by the public is that fact that no matter how good the image on the screen and no matter how good the sound, it doesn't compensate for poor service; patrons don't overlook lack of customer service because you can present picture and sound that might rival what was capable of in movie theatres of the 50s and 60s. They still hate going to the theatres today and they didn't back then.

Perhaps we both draw different conclusions from that.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 02-21-2005, 11:55 AM:

I'm not saying violence is the key to the issue but...
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to put a big door out to nowhere and send the morons through it?
I'd use it every weekend for the noisy, unruly, and disrespectful patrons.

Take for example the kids throwing soda on my #3 screen last night. Or the kids who chucked a large soda at someone across our big theater durring The Grudge.

"oh, come with me please...yes...right through that door..."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2005, 01:18 PM:

Frank, both have their pros and cons. With the state of the average multiplex these days, one is not necessarily better than another. *Most* old single screen theaters are not all that great in terms of presentation, but I say most because there are certainly exceptions. Also, *most* multiplexes pretty much suck too. Given two perfectly average middle-of-the-road theaters, one a single screen with average upkeep, projection and sound vs the typical multiplex with average upkeep, projection and sound, that leaves the customer pretty much deciding on whether they want the ambience and atmosphere of the single screen (but almost always a small picture with echoey sound) vs. a commonly better film presentation in terms of picture size and updated sound, but a wholly lackluster lobby and ambience experience. Fact of the matter seems to be that most people would choose the latter. People vote with their wallets. That's why a theater like the Uptown did phenomenal business (single screen with HUGE screen and apparently flawless projection in the past), but a smaller typical older single screen may be scraping the floor to try and stay alive.

It all just depends. To really have the discussion, we would have to debate it on two specific theaters that both of us had patronized. In some cases I would choose the single, in others I would choose the multiplex. It just depends.

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 02-21-2005, 08:09 PM:

Not a problem, Frank. I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree based on some of my own experiences in other theatres (mostly corporate owned). Where I was coming from, and I guess I didn't make this point real clear, is that I've been busting my ass for 3 years trying to improve the cinema experience in my small market in rural Minnesota. When I say busting my ass, I mean I am here EVERY day. If a movie is showing, I'm here. I damn proud of what I have been able to accomplish here and I feel that I've got a right to defend it. So I apologize if I mis-read you and got a little over zealous and defensive. [Smile]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-21-2005, 08:34 PM:

I'm manage a 16 plex with 2 floor employees daily. One in the box office, one in concession, an assistant manager as doorman, and one person in the booth. Some days I splurge and add an actual doorman. On these days, the ast. mgr. covers the door while the doorman picks up the theatres.

I'll have that 6% payroll, just you watch. When there are only 25 people here and I'm selling tickets, tearing them, fixing the popcorn AND running the shows, of course... [Roll Eyes]

It's no wonder good, competent managers are leaving the chains for smaller indies, or just leaving altogether... [Frown]

quote: Don Cross
I always like the ten and eleven theater megaplexes that WRONGLY believe that they can operate the place with only three staff people- including management! Wonder what happens if someone calls off from work (or even a no-show), or has to leave work early. I guess that the management and/or ownership doesn't happen to have any type of plan of what to do if anything out of the ordinary happens.

There has to be a better way than to operate with the minimum of skeleton crews.

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-21-2005, 08:43 PM:

The four person team is workable during a slow weekday afternoon. But it it really possible to have a multiplex with only three employees in the entire building?

No joke- OSHA, and the Department of Labor might have a real problem with that one. Whos supposed to cover for the breaks, which are literally mandated by both federal and (most) state laws?

Then theres the thing that coers the worst of case senerious (pardon if the spellings a bit off). How about a film or projector disaster? What happens if theres a customer or even an employee slip and fall?

Sorry, but I believe in covering all of the bases- ie all your bases belong to us [Razz]

.

A senior manager attempting to save the company a few nickels and dimes here and there is going to end up costing the company in the end. Additionally the spare employee could always assist- even in areas such as preventive maintainance (which ironically doesn't seem to be in most managers vocabulary anymore).

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-21-2005, 08:53 PM:

Don,

Please don't take my prior comments as my own policy.

I am FULLY aware of the ramifications of the 'unforseen occurence', however, I am merely a messenger (so to speak) in the grand scheme of things.

All I can do is plan ahead and make break times during our 'downtime' if you can say that we have any. It's not easy, it's truly a major PITA, but it's what I have to do. The 'one stop shopping' policy applies here. If it works elsewhere, it MUST work here... or so some think.

I, personally, feel that I have stepped outside the boundaries of good customer service. It is my opinion that anyone in Management, be it the GM or any AM, staff leader or any person in a position of authority NOT be confined to one posistion, as they carry the burden of assuring proper operation of the ENTIRE building, from the front door to the back door and everything in-between. God forbid there ever be an actual emergency or event that requires immediate attention by managerial level personnel, especially when the are tied down selling popcorn, tearing tickets, etc..

I am not saying that those in Mgt. shoudl not be there to help out, as needed, as this also offers the oversight and supervision that floor level employees need, but they should not be scheduled to work these positions on a daily basis. If this is what filling a position to cut back on payroll equates to, why hire any employees to begin with?

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-22-2005, 01:09 AM:

quote: Scott Balko
I take great offense to the insinuation that I provide poor customer service because I failed to remove and prosecute these fiends known as the 13 year old whisperers.

I disagree. How much selfish, needless, inconsiderate behavior are you going to allow to aggravate your other patrons? It doesn't count until they can be heard 2 rows away, or 3?

This is more Ground Level, & I'd be interested to know WWJZD (What Would Jim Zeigler Do ?)

quote: Scott Balko
I'm sure that even back in the glorious "good old days" the usher or matron couldn't catch everything that went on in those auditoriums and someone would still complain.

Wrong, they were still kicking out inconsiderate, whispering, giggling, selfish patrons who adversely affect the other customers' consumption of the service in singles up to the age of the twins & multiplex. They're still kicking them out in theaters, but not enough. I see it more often in theaters running art/foreign/grown-up stuff & neighborhood theaters, which pretty much shows that it's pretty much a theater-specific attribute as to how much disruptive behavior in the auditorium is tolerated by the management, & how much you can expect when you go there.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 02-23-2005, 12:01 AM:

When we have big Friday nights with lots of young teens in an auditorium, I make it a point to talk with adults (before start time) in the area and let them know we will do our best to watch the kids, but we can't catch it all so if they have problems to please let us know. I also do this in earshot of the kids so they know that I "pick on" them because they piss off other patrons, not because I dislike kids. Most of the time this works well, it almost informs the kids that they are being watched the entire show. I have found that when I target the kids with pre-show warnings, it makes things worse, because they test all limits. I also try to isolate trouble kids alone and away from the possie when I discuss issues with them. Usually not so tough then.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-24-2005, 01:14 AM:

quote: Jason Black
On these days, the ast. mgr. covers the door while the doorman picks up the theatres....

..It's called "Production" - cross trained and able to do any task in the building with full cross-training skills that has been implied to the employee. It helps keep the house nut down and profits up for the theatre.

With some small plexes with just 2 to 6 screens, the theatre is basically only making money in the hour and a half between the sets, like 6:30 to 7:30 -before the beginning time and after that last time of that set. After that, employees are just doing tasks of cleaning, stocking, and monitoring the premises, yet no production is accomplished, thus no money made in the drawers.

The employee becomes a liability to the company for no production is being performed.

Megaplexes just about took care of that with many screens, multiple showtimes, hourly movie starts, thus continual production and constant money flow in the snakbar drawers.

-Monte

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-25-2005, 03:56 PM:

monte-

I'm fully aware of the premise of production. Mind you, I'm not talking about a 2-6 screen theatre, I'm talkking about a 16 screener with minimal staffing. The staffing levels are below what I feel comfortable with and I am witnessing a slide in customer service due to such policies.

Sure, the ultimate goal is to get as many people in the door, through the consession lines and in the seats before showtime. If people get into the lobby and see 5-6 or more folks standing in line at the stand, they normally walk right by withhout dropping a dime. And we all know that once they get into the seat(s), it's hard pressed to think they will return to the stand for any popcorn/candy/drinks.

No matter what anyone else says, when blanket policies are made with regard to daily operations, the 'shoe doesn't alwasy fit'.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 03-01-2005, 08:52 AM:

I really wonder about the intelligence level of some of our patrons..

I had many people trying the main entrance door out of hours , we made up a large "Open at " sign and fixed a program guide holder on the outside near door. The "open at" sign made reference to the programs location. 12 months later I found while working inside while closer many people are still trying the main door. I answered the door on a few occaisions only to discover they only wanted a program guide which was less than 3 feet from where they were standing !!!!! [Mad]

Or like one person recently came in , moved rapidly around the lobby looking high up at the walls and gazing at the roof, he then became annoyed and asked if we had any current program guides.. I pointed to the counter surface where there was a stand full of current handouts. ( the question I ask is should I display the program guides on the roof of high on the walls where they seem to expect them to be [Roll Eyes]

Or the best yet when I am running a matinee by myself and while trying to serve 100 people the phone rings and the person on the other end askes for me to read out all the movie sessions for the next 3 days. where will it end ? i ask.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 03-01-2005, 04:20 PM:

Phil,
You make a good point. The interruption is RUDE!

Pavlov used a bell to make dogs salivate. Alexaner's Bell makes you drop everything and answer the phone!

I feel that the telephone is the rudest invention ever devised. Or is it just the way we have chosen to use it?

KEN

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-01-2005, 07:28 PM:

The cure for the phone is to stop answering it.
Let the answering machine handle it like I have for over 10 years now. Everything they need to know is on the answering machine. I didn't say they would all comprehend it, but the info is there.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 03-02-2005, 12:16 AM:

shouldn't this be in GL instead of FHF?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-03-2005, 03:44 PM:

quote:
I'm not talking about a 2-6 screen theatre, I'm talking about a 16 screener with minimal staffing

Jason..and I fully agree with you also on this, for I was a booth manager/engineer for a 21 screener and having my own staff of 5 guys upstairs, that could be a chore at times when I had to run all 21 machines for a weekend from open to close. Now if that wasn't FUN! Why such I had to do that is that some of the other guys were also downstairs personnel and this wknd the theatre ran short of help and they had to work downstairs, leaving me alone upstairs, in which the manager thanked me for my efforts, but recommended never do that again. For if I had a snafu in one house, the rest of the houses would be off time for the rest of the day.

That 21 screen's manager really had to keep an eye out on his budget payroll expenses. It was a real 'cut and dry' operation at times-lean, yet operational.

thx Monte