Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Home Theater vs Movie Theatre

This is topic Home Theater vs Movie Theatre 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=000623

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-30-2000, 09:15 PM:

Everybody on this forum knows and loves film, and also knows that it will kick the ass of any video format any time. But for the general public, home theatre is probably better than the moviegoing experience simply due to poorly maintained theatres, uneducated operators, and uncaring owners.

If you were Mr. Average and went to see a movie at your average movie theatre, you would be greeted by unknowledgable and apathetic staff, possibly a scratched and/or dirty print, poor sound, and bad splices. But Mr. Average goes out and buys a DVD player and he is amazed. He has Dolby Digital and DTS sound (both discrete 5.1 and both using LESS audio compression than their theatrical counterparts). He has a fairly clear picture. Too him, the disgusting MPEG2 artifacts are less disturbing than a continuous scratch or onscreen dirt. He can get HDTV which has HIGHER resolution than any digital video format proposed for theatrical exhibition. It seems that home theatre has us beat.

But why? It's because theatre owners are getting cheap. They are not concerned with the quality level of the presentation. They are not concerned with giving the audience something that simply cannot be obtained at home (unless you happen to be a collector). They seem more concerned with building as many new theatres as possible, oversaturating the market and putting themselves out of business (which is EXACTLY what is happening right now with United Artists). In order to accomplish the goal of oversaturating the market, they must cut costs, and it's usually in the booth. They pay less, require people of less intelligence and skill to operate, etc. They certainly won't reduce managers' wages.

I know that we can talk about it all day and night, but unfortunately theatre owners are certainly not going to listen. We need to provide something that make the customers want to come to the theatre. More than just the "newest movies". I know that everybody on this forum is doing their part to put on the best show they can, but they can't do it alone. They need support from the owners so they can obtain the tools they need, like FilmGuard, proper splicing equipment, and incentive to stay on and continue to do a good job if the operator is highly skilled and is an asset to the theatre.

I, for one, would love to see more 70mm releases. But only to theatres that have shown that they are capable of caring for the prints that they have. This would give audiences an even bigger and brighter picture (plus, don't we all like to see the big "In 70mm" ad in the paper?)

I think soon many people will find that they would rather rent a $2 DVD that they think looks and sounds better than pay for an $8 movie. The industry as a whole needs to improve and it is quite imperitive that they do it as soon as possible.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-30-2000, 09:24 PM:

Back in the fifties with theatres closing left and right TV new in the home offering entertainment and electronic cinema (eidifor) was there for sports the industry through NATO placea ban in the US on new theatre construction as it was felt that the biggest problem was during the heydays of the forties the market had been overbuilt in response to large attendance and massive production of product Maybe they should look at the past before it repeats It seems to maybe the larger 70mm or MAxiVision or Imax is the Cinemascope and 3D of the fifties
Well that is the end of the philisophical ramblings now to go back and bash some more SDDS

Posted by Erich Loepke (Member # 166) on 01-30-2000, 10:34 PM:

One problem area is there are too many gigaplex theaters being built. In the area where I live, there are two 30-screen AMC houses. Now I pick up the paper and there are maybe 8 or 10 titles actually running there. The one I went to, there was hardly anyone going to see movies there. At least I had expected more people, what with 30 screens. The thinking seems to be "Let's build a large theater with stadium seating, SDDS sound, and curved screens and we'll force the existing smaller theaters out of business". The consumer gets an illusory "benefit" of one-stop movie shopping. Of course, there really is no benefit when films are dirty, scratched, and out of focus, and the employees don't seem to give a damn about service. Every possible corner is cut with regard to quality of presentation. After all, don't people expect lines and dirt on film? This isn't DVD, after all. This chain-store mentality is killing film presentation, and it really is a crying shame.

If movie viewing really is on the decline, it ought to be well known by the management. They then should be looking for ways to get people out from in front of their DVD setups and into film theaters. Cutting corners on projection will not accomplish this. That seems to be admitting defeat by VHS and DVD. "OK, since no one wants to see movies in theaters anymore, we need to cut corners in order to remain in business". It's a conflicting statement, but it's the way some businesses are run. No matter what gadgets and gizmos become available for home theater, you'll never be able to produce the same feeling as actually being in a theater.

Why is home theater such an attractive alternative?

1. You don't have to get in a car and drive there.

2. No long lines at the ticket counter.

3. You can pause the movie to take a leak or fix a sandwich

4. You can smoke in a home theater.

5. No spilled drinks or popcorn to walk through.

That having been said, some of these "benefits" of home theater simply cannot be implemented by actual theaters. What is actually keeping the theater circuit alive is the fact that first-run movies are not on video. That needs to continue. Maybe a new slogan for the digital age can be "Movies without pixels" as a way of illustrating a benefit over home theater. What about DLP? It doesn't even match HDTV in picture quality, let alone 35mm film. It shouldn't even be considered a system for presenting motion pictures. Why should we backpeddle as far as image quality, especially with the need to compete with home theater?

What can a real theater offer that a home theater can't?

1. Large, high quality images. You just can't get a 40 foot screen in a house.

2. Good sound quality. Most home theaters probably don't have equipment that comes close to even a mediocre theater.

3. Movie viewing can be part of a "night on the town". Who really wants to go on a date and then come home for the film?

Being that these are mostly technical advantages, it makes no sense to install mediocre DLP systems. Instead, I'd like to see improved 35mm stocks, more 70mm and IMAX, and something better than compressed digital sound. Also, theater management needs to understand that corner cutting isn't going to help. Instead, it will only make more people stay at home to watch movies. If that means paying a decent wage to the projection and floor staff, so be it. Lastly, I'd like to see some of these Wal-Mart style multiplexes just fade away. The pendulum will swing away from these operations soon and back towards smaller operations.

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 01-30-2000, 11:04 PM:

Why movie theather vs. home theater?

The experience. At a good theater that cares,the popcorn is fresh and tasty,the drink isn't overloaded with ice,and doesn't cost a whole hell of alot, the auditorium is clean,the film starts in frame and is clean,clear and bright on a BIG screen. The sound is great and I leave happy. So do others.

At home,sit in your undies,see a clear but 45 inch picture,sound is dolby but....
Popcorn is outta a bag/mircowave
Drinks in a can.

Which sounds better?

The good theater does. Trouble is finding one at times. Some chains hire idiots at minimum who'd rather spit on you than serve you. Same idiots "play" projectionist trashing print after print with carelessness.
Outta frame starts,filthy floors,crap sound,etc. Thank godness there is more of us than the above example "them". Trouble is, they give us a bad name. People stay at home with the tv and dvd than go to a bad theater.

--Chris

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 01-30-2000, 11:14 PM:

I completely agree with Joe. It seems that in some ways, theatres are becoming more like television, and home viewing is becoming the more "pure" experience. For instance, theatres keep adding more and more commercials, PSAs, trailers and junk to the show that you are forced to sit though. With DVD, we no longer have to fast forward through ads and trailers like we did with VHS. With a DVD you can instantly start the show itself without spending one second watching any garbage you don't want to. Also, with DVD you are more likely to see a film in the correct aspect ratio than in a theatre. Many theatres have compromised aspect ratios that range from moderate to severe cropping of the image, or they hire kids who play 'musical lenses'. And new foreign films shot for 1:1.66 are guaranteed to be run improperly in many theatres. I can see why some people would think home theatre is better.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-31-2000, 01:41 AM:

quote:
Why is home theater such an attractive alternative?
1. You don't have to get in a car and drive there.
2. No long lines at the ticket counter.
3. You can pause the movie to take a leak or fix a sandwich
4. You can smoke in a home theater.
5. No spilled drinks or popcorn to walk through

You left out
6. No loud, obnoxious people there specifically to ruin the movie

I think a big failing of local theater management has been not kicking out unruly audience members, & maintaining in the customer's mind the idea that going out to see a movie will be pleasant.

When I went to see "Three Kings", about 7 18-23 year old auditorium-hopping males partied in, flopped down about 4 rows from the front, & after some social conversation, turned on a boom box.

I went to the concession operator & complained, & spent about 5 minutes in answering "well, what are we supposed to do about it?"

Some folks here berate audience members who don't *GET UP* & go get someone to fix a problem, but they're missing the point of how people want to pay for a movie. They want to do the same thing as at home, make the preparations, then *sit down" & get that mental condition of being on the butt for the duration. They paid their money to sit on their butts, & if they have to get up, they're being gypped.

Encountering unruly audiences is what I find most folks mention as the reason for just renting videos & staying home. Most don't seem to notice film scratches & other presentation issues above some subliminal level. They do sort of like movies better at the houses with better technical presentation, but can't articulate the reason.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-31-2000, 02:01 AM:

Nothing beats a home film theater. Yes it's true, there are people who run 35mm and 70mm at home!

Personally video anything simply does not live up to 35mm and 70mm film. If only the theaters would stop putting 10 minutes of commercials for jeans, hairspray, mp3 players and who knows what else, the moviegoing experience would be improved 100% just from that alone. I've got a real problem paying for a movie and being subjected to advertisements! Praise to Warner Brothers and Buena Vista for not allowing such nonsense!

Posted by Erich Loepke (Member # 166) on 01-31-2000, 02:46 AM:

Ads... Yuck! This is exactly what people go to a theater to get away from. What's next? Are commercials going to be required at reel changes because people got wise and started showing up late for the movie just to get away from this nonsense? Some of them look like video-to-film transfers. If ads are the only way an individual theater can be profitable, there's something really wrong.

What the hell's a boom box doing in a theater? That shouldn't have made it past the doorman. How about cell phones? The last time I saw Bicentennial Man (in DLP, I might add), someone got a phone call and decided to stand in the aisle and yak. Fortunately, this time it was a minor distraction or I would have said something.

I hate to admit it, but I really didn't care too much about my job when I worked as a popcorn shoveler. I knew I wouldn't be there the rest of my life. But that's the kind of people you get for minimum wage. Now, I'd feel kind of funny working in a concession stand some eleven years later. I'd be the only one who gave a damn among all the high school kids who are working because Daddy told them they had to. Projection, however, is an actual profession and should have well-trained and well-paid people in it. This is becoming less and less the case and the on-screen results show this. Just imagine a DVD release with the telecine machine run by the same "projectionists". It wouldn't look so good.

If a 27" TV looks better than a film at the theater, God help us!

LONG LIVE FILM!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-31-2000, 04:37 AM:

Once when I was watching the horrible movie "Blade" at the UA Colorado Center to check out their much ballyhooed "Big Screen" (it's more of a keystone screen and it's smaller than MY screen in MY big house at MY theatre, in 35mm). Anyway about halfway through the movie some idiot who didn't turn off his cell phone gets a call. of course, he answers it.

I could hear plain as day:
"Hello?"
"Just watchin' a movie."
"Really? Cool."
"Can I call you back when the movie is done?"
"OK good, Bye".

It was a steep ass stadium seating house, and my foot was very near to his head. My foot would have made subtle contact with his head had his conversation lasted much longer.

At Mann Theatres where I work we recently got a new policy trailer, and during the policy trailer it says very clearly "Please Turn Off Pagers and Cell Phones". I have heard people cheer when this part comes up. So obviously it is an ongoing problem that lots of people are having to deal with. We should build some kind of signal blocker around the theatre that renders cell phones and pagers inside completely useless.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 01-31-2000, 11:37 AM:

Yesterday during our one millionth showing of Phantom Menace, someone came out and said someone was talking on their cell phone and they asked them to take it outside and the man said to her and I qoute "fuck off lady", and continued on his call in his seat.

She showed me to where he was and I without even thinking about it took the phone from his hand and said into it "dickhead will call you right after I throw his ass out of my theater" and then hung it up, grabbed him by the arm and promptly tossed the ass out the exit door.

I am sorry but if theater owners will not take the initiative to throw these asses out then they have no right to own the damn place.

I have thrown more people out in the last six months then I threw out during the entire Lallapalooza tour (back in 92 I worked tour security, damn fun job).

As a result my business is increasing, slowly but word is spreading that I will kill anyone who talks during the movie. Just yesterday I was walking through End Of Days when I heard a Pop can open. Quicly confiscated the can from a very eldery gentlemen who quicly apologized and baught a drink at my concession counter to make up for it.

By the way, guilt works real well when selling concessions. Let them know that the new Googaplex down the street is putting you out of business and next thing you know they are buying enough popcorn to put your grandkids through college.

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-31-2000, 01:20 PM:

I agree with William Hooper...many people just don't notice scratches, etc. There have been times when we've had horribly scratched prints, and I've apologized to people as they were leaving. They invariably say, "Oh really? I didn't notice." Or, "Oh, I got used to it and it didn't bother me."

I think the best tool for keeping order in the theatre is the flashlight. It works especially well on teenage girls, who are so terrified of "being embarassed" or "looking stupid" that they cower in shame under the bright beam as if to say, "I'll be quiet, I promise, just TURN THAT OFF!"

We stopped running ads several years ago. One patron said to me, "why do you run commercials....that's what I come here to get away from!" And that did it for me. We weren't making that much money from them anyway. Course we only have one screen....I can see why a multiplex would learn to love that ad revenue.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-31-2000, 03:55 PM:

There's two things I have to say...

1) Add up the cost of a home theatre system... A good 32" TV, a 4HD VCR, a DVD, a Pro Logic (or better) receiver, the cost of renting or buying tapes/DVDs... You're talking $2,000 to $3,000! Divide that by the cost of a theatre ticket in your town. You'd probably have to watch a movie every night for a YEAR to even come close to paying that off! How many movies do people watch in a year? A few DOZEN?

2) People just don't have ANY understanding about picture quality... WHATSOEVER!
I used to sell TVs for a living when I left college. I'd spend all day explaining about picture quality. I'd give side-by-side comparisons. I'd be pointing to things on the screen like 'aliases' and blurry spots and 'moire' effects, etc. People JUST DON'T SEE THEM! -- REALLY!

Since we got FG, my 'eye' has sharpened up considerably. If I see more than one or two dust specks on a print, I start to get antzy. I watched a movie on TV that had dust on it so bad I had to leave the room. I'd have changed the station if others weren't watching. When asked why I was leaving in a huff, I answered that I couldn't stand watching a dirty movie. I proceded to actually point out the dirt. Not ONE of my family members could see it.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-31-2000, 05:54 PM:

Talk about cell phones...
I went to a ballet once (once) and right toward the end of the one movement (ha) there was this big crescendo. The orchestra was putting out about a zillion DBs and then it stopped to a dead silence. You guessed it, a cell phone rang. The entire theatre let out a huge groan. I was about 150 yards away, or I would have snatched and seen how hard I could bounce it off the floor. After the end of the segment (or whatever they're called in ballet) the theatre was was buzzing like a swarm of bees. I would have hated to been the person with the phone call.

Posted by timothy johnson (Member # 83) on 01-31-2000, 06:21 PM:

People who come to the movie with the mind set that they are "at home" watching a movie quickly learn to shut up when I lean over an comment "I did not pay $8.00 to listen to you talk during this film, please have some respect" I have atually almost quit going to the theater because of noisy patrons, parents who bring children to rated-R flicks, noisy snack munchers, etc. (some idiot brought a 7 or 8 year old child to private ryan, what the f*** is up with that. I try and go to see a flick during school and work hours.

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 01-31-2000, 06:39 PM:

My first memories of the movies were when the tickets cost .75 Adults, .50 Juniors, and .25 for children. The local theaters in those days were clean, had ushers that kicked out noisy patrons, and excellent projection in a LARGE AUDITORIUM on a LARGE SCREEN. Although my hearing isn't what it used to be, I still wouldn't trade all the Dolby, DTS and all the other technoglitz of today for my movie going experiences of the '50's and early '60's.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-31-2000, 07:09 PM:

I think that the quality of the film-going experience depends on the theatre and the type of crowd that it attracts.

I've generally had good experiences in the art-house and repertory theatres that I frequent; they're generally clean and patrons are well-behaved, although the film presentation is usually sub-optimal...but what can you expect for $4-6 admission.

When I pay full-price to see the latest blockbuster at the biggest, loudest theatres, I am almost always disappointed with the experience, mostly becuase I somehow seem to always end up seated next to the People Who Will Not Shut Up. I've only once heard a phone ring in a theatre (the guy actually answered it!)...maybe I've been lucky.

Don't get me started on laser pointers, though...we didn't have anyone bringing them into the place where I used to work, but I've been to several shows at other places which were almost unwatchable as a result of laser-pointer activity...

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-01-2000, 01:20 AM:

quote:
We should build some kind of signal blocker around the theatre that renders cell phones and pagers inside completely useless

The live houses tried to do this. It turns out that since it would be "interfering with radio signals", it's against the law.

The law needs to be changed to accommodate blocking nuisance transmission & reception.

Write your congressman. Send him some passes.

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 02-01-2000, 04:09 AM:

I agree with Scott. To me, a good movie experience depends a lot on the audience. I try to venture out to the local art houses as often as I can even though I work in a big multiplex. The prints are dirty and sometimes scratched, the lamps are dim, the sound is mono, the seats are uncomfortable, the image bleeds onto the curtains, ect. But don't misunderstand me, presentation is VERY important to me, but I like the art houses because: nobody brings their kids (or babies), the people who go there are there to see the film, not make trouble or kill time on a Friday night, it's possible to have a pleasant conversation with a total stranger sitting next to you, there are no commercials before the film, the intermission music is always a nice selection made by the manager that doesn't get interrupted by "That was Paula Cole with her new smash hit single, now please go out to the concession stand!", they actually sell edible food like cheesecake and cookies, the audiences are much more sophisticated than the multiplex crowd who don't get half the jokes and might as well be dead. I could go on and on.

I don't remember who, but someone mentioned in another topic that they'd like it if all theatres were independently owned instead of all these big chains running everything. I agree! If we could get rid of these big companies, going to the movies wouldn't be so commercial. Every theatre would be individual and unique, and would attract a more mature crowd. All the immature dorks can hang out at the laser tag or rent DVDs.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-01-2000, 12:29 PM:

Erika!

Come, run my booth!

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 02-01-2000, 01:26 PM:

Well, I would, Ian, if your theatre weren't in (yuck!) California!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-01-2000, 02:56 PM:

Erika that was me that said that. I myself run a discount theater and am immensely tired of the discount crowd we get. Soon I will change this place to an art house that does plays and comedy shows as well as movies, and NO DISCOUNT SHOWS EVER EVER EVER!!! The discount crowd usually makes less then we all do and they never buy concessions and they trash the joint, and as a result I have to run few shows during the day so I can clean up after their lazy asses.

We will start running family movies of the week, old classics and such, for a descent price but not discount. I want families in here not white trash families (sorry to all the white trash people I just offended, but of course there are none of them here thank god!)!

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Ed Johnson (Member # 94) on 02-03-2000, 11:32 AM:

One thing no one has mentioned is that an audience can also improve how much you enjoy a movie. At least for me, when the audience is really into the movie, laughing and cheering at parts, it can enhance the movie (its the same reason they put laugh tracks on television shows). Of course, this doesn't matter if audience members aren't respectful of others...

BTW, I'm constantly amazed at how much people loathe the service at most concession stands. I guess my theater must be exceptional in the fact that the concession stand employees (not to mention the rest of the staff) take pride in their work. We have a great staff that works hard and honestly cares about what they do and I find amazing that many of you have found so much apathy in theater employees.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 02-03-2000, 04:34 PM:

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

In response to a thankful note posted earlier in this thread : in the last week, I have been informed by corporate management that Warner Brothers will NO LONGER BAN ADS FROM THEIR FILMS. Even worse, the new Pepsi ad has approval for placement with all prints, including Buena Vista! The last two hold-outs from over-commercialism have fallen. Rue the day...

-Mike

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-03-2000, 08:53 PM:

I first knew people were getting spoiled by TV when I ran a scratched print of "W.W. & the Dixie Dancekings", at a drive-in in the late 70s. Someone out on the field yelled, "Git rid of the @#$% lines!"

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-06-2000, 05:38 PM:

The most positive thing about having a home theater is you can wacth a movie in peace, there is no chit-chat from the people behind or in front of you, no cell phones, no pagers, nothing at all to destract your attention from the movie.

One last thing, in theaters people always leave the theater as soon as the first cue of endtitels hits the screen, that has always upset me because i like to stay seated and wacth the ENTIRE movie. I do that at home as well.

Martin

Posted by Stephen Winner (Member # 8) on 02-07-2000, 10:28 PM:

It sounds like what the industry needs is good independant houses like ours here:

1400 seat auditorium designed for good acoustics.

50 foot wide screen

16mm, 35mm, and 70mm projection with changeovers for minimum scratching

super-efficent 5 channel Altec sound system- every seat has good sound

6500 Watt carbon-arc lamps for over 16 FL's on the screen.

NO trailers or ad's before the feature presentation...only cartoon shorts, or silent comedies with organ accompinment

"stadium style" seating even before it was an advertising gimmick.

skilled employees and technicians running the place that know how to work all that equipment!

The real serious movie goers in this town know were to go to get a good presentation. Their cry is "Wait till it's at the Byrd! (theater)" We have many regulars I see down here on an almost weekly basis catching our latest show (shows never run over 2 weeks here)We only charge $2 for we are a second run house, but we average about 500 to 1000 on a good Saturday nite!

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 02-08-2000, 03:29 PM:

Stephen, your second run house sounds infinitely better than most first run houses. We definitely need more independents.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-08-2000, 07:08 PM:

This is just my personal opinion, but if your auditorium seats 1400, then it should have a MUCH larger screen than 50 feet. My large houses seat only 403, and they have 55 foot wide screens. Also, you'll get fewer marks and scuffs with platters than changeovers. But both can be perfect assuming that you know how to run them.

Again, just my opinion.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-09-2000, 02:24 AM:

quote:
This is just my personal opinion, but if your auditorium seats 1400, then it should have a MUCH larger screen than 50 feet. My large houses seat only 403, and they have 55 foot wide screens.

But do they have a balcony, huge plaster proscenium, austrian swag grand curtain, theatre organ, multi-color cove lighting, 50 foot ceiling, monster chandelier, & live operators, too...