Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Doesn't this just suck?

This is topic Doesn't this just suck? 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=001238

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 07-27-2000, 02:40 AM:

So on screen advertising is 5 times more effective than tv advertising, and somehow that won't affect the number of commercials in theatres. Um, right. It figures that we can blame Technicolor for screwing up the moviegoing experience once again.

Loews Cineplex Signs Major On-Screen Advertising Agreement

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 25, 2000--Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation (NYSE:LCP;TSE:LCX) announced today that it has signed a long-term exclusive agreement estimated to be worth in excess of $60 million with Technicolor Entertainment in connection with the placement of rolling stock advertising on Loews Cineplex theatre screens in the United States.

The agreement will provide for Technicolor to sell filmed advertising prior to the feature presentation on approximately 1,800 Loews Cineplex screens throughout the United States. The program is expected to debut in July 2000 and will not extend the length of Loews Cineplex's pre-show presentation, reflecting the company's commitment to provide its customers with an enjoyable and satisfying moviegoing experience. Loews Cineplex currently runs on-screen advertising in its theatres in Canada, Europe and Asia.

Lawrence J. Ruisi, President and CEO of Loews Cineplex, noted that "We are very pleased to announce this agreement, which represents the next step in our strategy to generate ancillary revenues in our business. On-screen advertising has been shown to be five times as effective as television advertising. With our broad demographic audience, national reach and ideal urban concentration, our theatres represent a unique and highly effective opportunity for advertisers to deliver their message. On-screen advertising represents a significant source of revenue for international exhibitors throughout the world, and we are excited about the potential value this transaction creates for our business in the United States."

About Loews Cineplex Entertainment:

Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation (NYSE: LCP; TSE:LCX) is one of the world's largest publicly traded theatre exhibition companies in terms of revenues and operating cash flow, with 2,926 screens in 385 locations primarily in major cities throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. Loews Cineplex's divisions include Loews Cineplex International, Loews Cineplex United States and Cineplex Odeon Canada. Loews Cineplex operates theatres under the Loews, Sony and Cineplex Odeon names. In addition, the Company is a partner in Magic Johnson Theatres, Star Theatres, Yelmo Cineplex de Espana, De Laurentiis Cineplex d'Italia, Transturk Cineplex of Turkey and Far East Cineplex of Vietnam.

About Technicolor:

A wholly owned subsidiary of Carlton Communications Plc (Nasdaq: CCTVY), Technicolor has evolved as the number one processor of motion picture film to become the world's largest independent manufacturer and distributor of Videocassettes, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, CD-ROM and CD-Audio and a leading service provider for cinemas involving distribution of film prints, promotional materials and on-screen advertising.

Technicolor serves an international base of entertainment and software customers with its facilities in Michigan, California, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Virginia, Mexico, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Major Hollywood clients include Disney, Warner, DreamWorks and New Line. Software publishers include Microsoft and Hewlett Packard.

This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding the Company's results and prospects. Actual results could differ materially from these statements. The forward-looking statements in this press release should be read in conjunction with the factors described in "Item 1. Business - Factors That May Affect Future Performance" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 1999, which, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this press release and in oral statements made by authorized officers of the Company. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

CONTACT: Loews Cineplex Entertainment

Mindy Tucker, 212/833-6073

Corporate Vice President, Strategic Planning

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-27-2000, 09:15 AM:

The article doesn't make it clear whether the on-screen advertising is in the form of slides or actual film ads (is that what "rolling stock" means?). If the pre-show presentation is the same length, as the article says, then fewer movie previews must be shown, which will hurt future attendances, since many customers make decisions concerning future theatre visits based on the impressions they get from the previews. This sounds like a sure way for theatre companies to shoot themselves in the foot, while irritating their customers by showing more ads. People don't seem to mind sitting through several previews as much as they do sitting through just a few commercials, unless the commercials are very entertaining.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 07-27-2000, 09:41 AM:

One of several models put forward to help offset the higher costs of digital cinema is with increased advertising revenues that might be generated by selling some of that advertising time. Sounds like the initial impressions of such a plan aren't so hot... Advertising is very common in SE Asia, but I'm not sure US audiences are ready for such a thing. Still, looks like at least one major is going to put a foot in the water to see how hot it gets.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-27-2000, 11:09 AM:

".... and will not extend the length of Loews Cineplex's pre-show presentation."

I can assure you that this is complete and total bullshit. About 5 minutes after they "think" they have got patrons used to ads, they will add more and more.

Marketing people are evil!!!

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 07-27-2000, 11:26 AM:

What happened? Why is everything getting worse? That drive-in restaurant dad used to take us to is now a drive-thru. National anthem, cartoons, double-feature - OR - was that just a dream?

------------------
Dave Bird

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 07-27-2000, 11:39 AM:

"People don't seem to mind sitting through several previews as much as they do sitting through just a few commercials, unless the commercials are very entertaining."

Commercials shown in movie theaters don't appear to be as good as those shown on TV. Coke used to be able to make a good commercial (they often came from TV), but it's like they try not to anymore. And why do the commercials I see look so grainy on the movie screen? Were they shot in 8mm? Even if the commercials were good, a repeat captive audience would find the commercial less enjoyable the 2nd and 3rd time around. For the commercials to be enjoyable they must be both entertaining and fresh.

Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 07-27-2000, 11:48 AM:

I remember watching an ad for a Six Flags ride at an AMC theatre. I have been known to yell, "I would love to go on the ride, but I am watching a movie". Trailers are movie related and are great. Actual advertising is just plain wrong! Film ads are even worse than the slides. All of this advertising with the arcades in the lobby and untrained projectionists will lead to everyone going out of business.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-27-2000, 12:42 PM:

On the "freshness" issue:

Those who go to the movies almost every week dislike repetition. A good rule of thumb is that many things get stale on the third viewing, unless they're unusually funny or entertaining. This would imply that ads would need to be changed at least every two weeks to not irritate the frequent moviegoers. I don't see companies making the effort to pump out new commercials every two weeks -- why put effort into making something with a 2-week lifetime? So, I guess frequent moviegoers will be stuck with seeing the same commercials over and over.

The repetition has never bothered me much with the policy trailers until now. In the past, the brief trailers for Carmike and Regal have never bothered me. Recently, though, the policy trailer now used by Regal with the little girl with the masculine voice is old and I dread seeing it again. The "train" or "roller coaster" trailer never got annoying after nearly three years, but the "masculine voice girl" is already unbearable. I often hear several utterings of "Oh, no" when that thing starts playing now in Regal theatres. Repeated commercials are going to have a similar effect. In fact, that new Regal thing isn't as much of a policy trailer as much as it is a really bad Pepsi commercial. Sometimes, I wish the audience would just blatently "BOO" any commercials they've seen before and don't like.

Before a movie, showing something that gives the audience information about upcoming movies is an important way to get people to come back. Replace those previews with commercials and attendances will drop in the future. I promise it.

My other gripe about commercials in theatres is that many of them are nowhere near the quality of standard movie trailers. Many are simply still images (like a slide) with a voice advertising something (O'Charleys, University of Alabama A&M, Donna Apple Realty, etc.). Some are presented in the TV aspect ratio of 1.33:1 and some of them look like video blown up to 35mm. If they're going to make commercials to be shown in theatres on film, they should at least compose them to fit either the flat or scope format, and use 35mm film (or equivalent digital resolution) for shooting. Well, that's enough ranting about commercials for the time being.

Evans A Criswell http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-27-2000, 12:57 PM:

So did Regal finally dump the "roller coaster" policy trailer? That thing always looked terribly dated to me--almost like someone did the animation on a Commodore 64 or something like that. It was so low-res that you could clearly see the scan lines...

And, yes, I hate commercials in theatres. If they _must_ be shown, then they should at least be required to be photographed on 35mm film and be different from the commercials that are shown on broadcast television. Slide ads are bad enough, but TV commercials blown up to 35mm and shown cropped to 1.85 are just downright awful.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-27-2000, 01:15 PM:

Although most of the national-account "high end" television commercials are shot on FILM, most of editing (e.g., AVID), titling and post production are done digitally at video resolution. So if the completed digital video master of a television commercial is transferred back to film for theatre use, the image quality is often poor.

Local or "low end" commercials usually originate on video.

To cut costs, "rolling stock" ads often are not printed on Kodak film.

Feature films and trailers usually use 35mm film for production, and use film quality post production techniques. If digital effects and compositing are used, at least 2K resolution is used, and 4K is preferred.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 07-27-2000, 01:30 PM:

General Cinema's way out of the commercials is to start the movie early. Currently, my theatre has 3 minutes of this crap ahead of the show. Including Nike, Pepsi, and McDonalds. So we are to start the show 3 minutes early. This is on top of a minimum of 4 trailers, plus the policy trailers.

People are going to get pissed off and not come to the movies. Why should they pay to be advertised to. Slides are bad enough, but this is just stupid.

By the way, speaking as someone who has a degree in Marketing, John is wrong. We are much worse than evil. So evil, that it is pronounced eeev-illle. Like the fru-its of the dev-iiilll.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2000, 01:44 PM:

If commercial ads are a necessary evil, I like General Cinema's practice of pre-rolling the film early. That way, people who show up right on time don't have to see them.

Of course, having a curtain call right after the rolling stock and before the first MOVIE preview would be ideal. Of course, everyone knows that it takes 30 minutes for the curtains to open after they close.

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 07-27-2000, 01:50 PM:

Curtains? Who still has curtains? Especially in your new 16 plex.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-27-2000, 02:07 PM:

The only theatre in my area that had curtains that completely closed over the screen was the Gateway Cinemas 4, which opened in December 1967, which was twinned in 1974 and quadded in 1990, and had curtains on all screens, although some were not functional when the theatre closed. This excellent second-run theatre's last night was May 11, 2000, and I hated to see it go.

There were seldom more than two trailers shown before the movies! There would usually just be the Regal "train" policy trailer, plus one movie preview, then the movie would start!

About the Regal "train" policy trailer: I have not seen it since I first was subjected to the "masculine voice girl" trailer on Friday, June 23, 2000 in front of "Chicken Run" on its opening night. I assume that June 23 was the night that the change was made since I saw movies the week before at Regal theatres. I sure hope Regal doesn't keep that awful thing as long as they kept the "train". I've actually complained about that trailer in comment cards to Regal and it was not put on several movies I've seen recently. Yippee! It's fun to put comments like "It's time for that new policy trailer to jam in the gate and melt away forever." or "That little girl with the masculine voice is in severe need of a brain wrap." Have any of you noticed the terrible lab splices visible in that thing?

At least with the "train" policy trailer, the kids loved it, and if there were any high school students from Grissom High School in the theatre, they'd hold up their arms as if they were on a roller coaster while the thing was playing.

More commercials in theatres are inevitable, but let's just hope that efforts will be made to make them entertaining, like the recent one about the guy who has a girlfriend made of rice crispy treats material (I can't remember the product being advertised!) There is also the commercial that ends with a guy saying "I'm not a cheerleader, I'm an athletic supporter." I guess if they make them too entertaining, the product won't be remembered, as is the case with me and these two funny ones.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2000, 03:16 PM:

Well, since I don't work for Loews and never will, this doesn't affect me, and therefore I really don't care. It sucks for the projectionists that do have to deal with it, though, and the customers. Carl must work for Loews.

I have curtains in my new 16 plex.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 07-27-2000, 04:18 PM:

Yes, mid-June was the date we all had to switch over to the Pepsi-girl Policy Trailer. It features the same little girl from the t.v. commercials who does the Robert Deniro "impression" (voice-over actually), pissed off because the bartender only had Coke. In this trailer, she reads off a list of the theatre rules(i.e. no smoking, pick up your trash, etc.) in a deep, John Wayne-like voice and cowboy costume in an old time saloon. Highly annoying and lasts about 2 minutes, insane for a Policy Trailer. As for pre-movie ads, they can be tolerable if few and entertaining. Some good one's that come to mind are the M & M's line (Buy a bag!, I am an athletic supporter...) and Rice Krispies Treats (the statue girlfriend that the dog eats). These were funny the first couple times, but were packed in with so many others (we currently have a list of four ads we must use before the first preview trailer) that the entire thing was still highly irritating. As to freshness of ads, not to mention that the companies would have to print new ones every couple of weeks, I would have to change them all out every couple of weeks, ick!

-Mike

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-27-2000, 05:00 PM:

Ok, I'll tell this story again.

In England they publish two show times for each showing. The first show time is for the pre-show. The pre-show consists of advertising and previews. You can drink a beer and eat your chips and await the feature. At the second show-time they bring up the lights, close the curtain and run a trolly around the auditorium to see if they can sell a bit more. Then they lower the lights, open the curtain and get on with the feature.

It all seems perfectly civilized to me.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 07-27-2000, 11:17 PM:

Cinemark has been using Technicolor for rolling stock since May 19. They are much more organized about it than NCN. By the way, Cinemark also has the policy the the prescreen advertising starts before the published showtime. For example - 700 Film w/ 4 minutes of pre-show advertising - Usher-B starts film at 6:56

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-28-2000, 02:03 AM:

I was going to wait until Scream hit the dollar movie house, because the audiences there are more fun for low comedy, but went with some friends to last weekend to see it at a first run house.

The audiences are already annoyed by the ads. Big sighs on about the second commercial; big, exasperated profanity from some guy in the back when the 2nd low-res 1.37 national ad came up, & agreeing laughter from the rest of the house. Restless, annoyed, pushed out of movie theater cushy-seat relaxation - it sounded like the dollar movies, but grumpy instead of fun.

Not that it will make any difference. When advertising greed starts killing attendance numbers, corporate will just say that people don't (go to movies, in this case) like they used to & cut operating costs more.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-28-2000, 03:17 AM:

A lot of times companies end up with the short straw and just dive in to get it over and done with. Pretty soon, the other cinema companies will start advertising in this manner also so there'll be no choice...if you want to go to the movies, you have to put up with some advertising. Ads are everywhere nowadays and a large white screen with a captive audience is just too good an opportunity to pass up.

We've been having screen advertising, both slide and film for nearly thirty years here. Folks are just used to it. They may not like it and I may not like running them, but they are a revenue earner for the companies and that's the bottom line.

Digital conversion to film from video is getting pretty darn acceptable these days. You can still go WOW at a 35mm shot ad, but in a block of ads where there is no ad shot in 35mm, it's a far cry from the early transfers in the late seventies/early eighties.

We are moving away from slide advertising though. One company here (and I believe others will follow) doesn't sell slide advertising, but instead transfers stills to film and so the stills desolve and flip and do 'exciting' things which, though still lame, beat a 35mm slide any old day of the week.

Didn't Disney say they wouldn't allow theatres to screen their product in theatres which had paid advertising a while back? (This never happened here of course, because they wouldn't have had their films screened anywhere had that been enforced).

I feel sorry for you guys who are just starting out on this road, but it's unfortunately a sign of the times...dollars...dollars...dollars...and that's about it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-28-2000, 09:04 AM:

From "Screen Digest" http://www.screendigest.com/timeline.htm

26 May 2000 "Technicolor Entertainment (www.technicolor.com) announces $60m rolling stock cinema advertising deal with Loews Cineplex, only days after parent company Carlon acquires Screenvision"

22 May 2000 "Carlton Communication acquires Screenvisionc, largest US on-screen cinema advertiser in US, as part of expanding UK cinema advertising business (Carlton Screen Advertising) to US, estimated to have $1bn cinema advertising potential. E-cinema technology likely to be used."

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-28-2000, 09:07 AM:

Almost everything that the on-screen advertisers promised would not happen, has happened.

First they said the ads would be high-quality, both in content and production. At our theater chain, it took less than a year for the ads to go from decent quality to poorly transferred TV crap. Apparently, none of the people who make or transfer ads know the difference between 1.85 and 1.33, not to mention color quality, focus and resolution, and audio levels.

There was not supposed to be any more than three ads at a time. Now we have six. When I pointed this out to a Screenvision guy, he said I can't include the "anti-drug" and "Navy" ads, since they don't consiter PSA's to be an "ad." So, they say they only added one.

Lastly, we did start the pre-show ads early, but then word came down from "Mount High" that the ads would be "more effective" (read: more people in the audience) if the there was no indication of any pre-show. So now we start at the time mentioned in the papers or the recording- "... to maximise our captive audience, and realize our maximum potential!"

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-28-2000, 11:46 PM:

We start our screen ads as close to show time as possible to get them finished right at the published show time--occasionally it runs over but rarely than a minute or 2.

Posted by Kevin Crawford (Member # 469) on 07-29-2000, 12:20 AM:

GC's policy is not to place any advertising on a Disney feature at all. Including 444/777 FILM. Since I am in obsurity at a discount house, nobody checks. But theoretically, they check up on the first run theatres.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 07-29-2000, 03:54 AM:

Yeah, that's Buena Vista's (read Disney) policy actually. They do not allow any non-
movie preview advertising to be attached to their prints. Warner Brothers used to have this policy too, but they soon caved like everybody else (sigh...).

-Mike

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 07-29-2000, 04:00 AM:

Actually, Buena Vista has caved as well, somewhat. Pre-show advertising may be played on any print that is not succintly "Disney" i.e. Touchstone, Hollywood, etc are ok. (Example - ok on Gone in 60 Seconds and Shanghai Noon, but not The Kid or Dinosaur).

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 07-29-2000, 04:22 AM:

I have been to a theatre owner's convention in Berlin last week. In general screen advertising in Europe is quite common for decades. I hate commercial ads within a movie show, as people pay for admission. Commercial advertising belongs to FREE TV, where people are intended to watch continous commercials with feature film inserts.
Our theatres are kept fre of commercial ads, except a concession logo. We screen 5 trailers. But all other theatres screen commercials for cigarettes, beers, liquors and lifestyle products upfront even young audiences.
I was invited to a Titanic show some years ago. It was birthday gift. The show was scheduled 8:15 pm. We were there on time, but it took to become 9:08 until the feature film started. (40 mins of commercials, 2 trailerettes, and ongoing ice-cream sales)
They also introduced an unneccessairy 15 min break prior to the berg scene, just to sell more concessions. The film was out 0:28, the last train home would have been 0:32, with 25 minutes of walking to the station.
The subway had stopped operation already, as we were there on Tuesday night.
As they do not offer ample parking, you're forced to use the train.
I was invited as a gift,... my friends payd US$ 12.50 for 40 min of commercials, and a feature showm with 4 fl at the giant screen, in gorgeously loud and distorted THX sound. (Why does nobody take the certify manual's point "listen to familiar program material" serious?)
What an experience at the competition. Since then I never visited a theatre again, except for professional work on site.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2000, 08:15 AM:

Just a point of clarification: Buena Vista does not allow any _film_ advertising before their titles. Slides are considered to be acceptible.

(And, as much as I dislike Buena Vista's strongarm dealings with theatre owners, this is one policy of theirs which I would like to see adopted by other distributors.)

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-29-2000, 09:19 AM:

Guys:
Wait until they start changing the commercials at the last minute. They say now that they wont, but they will. When they started running commercials in the local UA 7-plex was when I stopped going to the movies. I was sick of loud people, sticky floors, and indifferent theater people, ushers running their loud mouths during the credits like I was not even there, etc.

During my final years in TV, I had to view EVERY commercial that came thru the station. Every advertiser had to have their spots running just so... Some came with instructions not to run their products in the same grouping with something else. I finally got out of TV, and mute the sound at home when commercials start during a show. I hate commercials.

Theaters are shooting themselves in the foot by doing this. People like me used to go to theaters because there were no commercials other than the ones that promoted products at the snack bar.

Prediction: Someday there will be intermissions cut into the features by saying: "The next segment of our feature is brought to you by..."

I know. This is business. Well, business is causing the theaters to be no better than Television!!!!!

End of rant, for now.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 07-29-2000, 01:36 PM:

You won't block screen advertising, it's common business in Europe for decades, as said before.
During the convention, they were talking about a a more flexible systemnof commercial presentation using digital video with lower res (800x600) video projectors. Point was, to change ads by demand. On the other hand the clients want the hi-res film quality with digital sound. So the struggle is, affordable lo-res for flexibility today, or hi-res together with digital film projection
tomorrow.
One point in the "how to finance the digital projection thing" was MORE, CHEAPER, AND FLEXIBLE screen advertizing.
According to statistics published, theatres are grossing about 5% of their total gross income on screen advertising films. You could easily loose 10 % patrons by screening commercials, so ads will bring no benefits. On the other hand, globalization is the goal, therefore structures have to be identical, or?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-29-2000, 09:27 PM:

Hmmm.....

I've always wished I had two projectors for each house. One for the trailers and one for the feature.

Maybe ther IS a use for digital projection after all?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2000, 09:37 PM:

I know that some people are really good at it and don't seem to mind, but I personally really hate changing out trailers on platter setups. I was really, really wishing for a reel-to-reel booth tonight, with a bunch of NCN ad junk to change and a defective R1 of "Nutty 2" to replace (it just _had_ to be R1, didn't it?).

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to run ten screens with 20-minute reels, either...

If I ever own a theatre, it will be a single-screen house with three projectors--two 35/70 and one 16mm...

Posted by Malcolm Gerard (Member # 546) on 07-30-2000, 12:18 PM:

You North Americans don't know you're born when it comes to screen advertising! Here in the UK, Carlton (They don't use the name Tecnicolor here except for the labs), distribute up to 20 minutes (yes, twenty!) of adverts for all but lower profile family matinee movies. Some theatres, like mine, limit it to a maximum of 15, but more is suffered by struggling exhibitors when it is offered. To be fair, the reels average more like ten but you're talking around three! There is another provider (Pearl & Dean) who service around 10% of British sites but their reels are much the same apart from their opening and closing titles.
Furthermore, the contract states that they must not start before the advertised programme time. When Rank, from whom Carlton bought the business, were in charge they even tried to insist the ads were shown after the trailers! Odeon (their circuit then) did this for a long time.
The ads here have all been shown (or are released concurrently) on terrestrial television. The reels are changed weekly to start on Fridays to coincide with new movie releases, but are in fact alternated reels, with some changes each fortnight. The same ads reappear for months at a time - turning up every other week. Since this situation, has existed (more or less unchanged) for 50 years or more, it's accepted as part of price of the ticket - which would undoubtedly be higher otherwise. People can always come in late - though surpringly most do not.
Some art houses don't run adverts but most now do, financial necessity has seen to that.
The pictorial quality, however. is high for most of the adverts, and many are classy and entertaining productions (at least for the first couple of times you see them!) Those made with concern principally for their television outings are usually printed 4:3 inside 1.85 with black margins for the cinema, so there is no cropping. A few of those shot on video are poor visually, but they are very much the exception.
It was bound to come to you sooner or later, with such an irrisistible additional revenue for exhibitors. The only mystery is why it has taken so long - especially in countries which have always been used to television saturated with commercials integrated into the programmes in a way we have never had to tolerate here, and the BBC always running movies (just as up to date as their commercial rivals - one of which is the ubiquitous Carlton) uninterrupted - until, at least, the now routine and very annoying habit of voiceovering the closing credits with 'next programme' information!
So, whatever the promises, you know what to expect. Three minutes will become four and so on.
I'm only sorry to hear that Carlton have decided to degrade the once sacred name Technicolor by using it so infamously and variously in the States. It must sadden all those who have grown up with it only as the premier brand of film colour.

Posted by John T. Mellor (Member # 468) on 07-30-2000, 07:50 PM:

Ive been in this business for about 30 plus years and before that an avid movie goer. To me its a damm shame that we have to stoop to the level that we are . I was always under the impression that movies were an extention of the Theatre. And the last time I went to see a live stage show I don't recall seeing commercials! I don't think the movie going public would mind pre show slides but the way we are going well show more comercials and previews than feature. by the way i worked a few houses that had working curtans and it realy makes for a much better movie going experiance.
to bad we can't find a way to loose all that commercial stuff.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-10-2000, 12:38 AM:

"I know. This is business. Well, business is causing the theaters to be no better than Television!!!!!"

Does that mean they'll start showing the theater company's logo in the lower right-hand corner of the screen during the entire movie?

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 09-10-2000, 02:16 AM:

No, but we will start having "shut up, turn off your cell phone, and take you bloody feet off the seats" scroll across the bottom of the screen at 5 minute intervals.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-10-2000, 09:13 AM:

No they will be installing variable anamorphic Panatars so we can sqeeze the credits onto the side of the screen so we can get slides on early

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-10-2000, 10:49 AM:

NOOO!!! Don't say that!!! You might give them IDEAS!!!!!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-11-2000, 07:37 AM:

Rumor has it that additional on-screen advertising is being considered in some of the business cases for Digital Cinema, to help pay for the tremendous capital expenditure required.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-11-2000, 08:23 AM:

How much more on-screen advertising can possibly be added? In many theatres, sadly, the screen is filled with advertising (either slides or film or both) whenever the feature is not being shown. Short of adding a second screen or superimposing "buy product X!" over the picture, I find it difficult to believe that it is possible for many theatres to increase the amount of on-screen advertising.

I do have the utmost respect for theatres that continue to not show advertisements on screen. I am certainly not opposed to trailers or slides that promote upcoming films, or even to movie-related products like Coke, gift certificates, and such, but stuff like McDonalds commercials has no place in movie theatres, IMHO.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 09-11-2000, 12:47 PM:

I think audience perception is kind of a critical thing here. I get the feeling that as long as it is "Intermission" with the lights at a walk-in level, current advertising is really not too much of a bother unless the accompanying sound is too loud or otherwise intrusive.

I think once the lights go down and a "moving image" hits the screen, then people want the movie or things associated with the movies -- coming attractions, etc. Heck, even a snack bar ad would probably be okay for most people, but even that has it's limits.

When the lights go down and the moving image becomes advertising in the theatre, I think that's when the public will react. If Cal Worthington and his dog Spot (no offense, Cal) rides onto the big screen touting '88 Chevy's, that's going to far.

Then again, why would you want to use your $200,000 digital projector to do the same thing you've already got with slides?

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 09-11-2000, 07:16 PM:

In the GCC "Premium Theatre" in Framingham, MA (if one can call a theatre with a 10 year old V5 "premium") they've installed a non-"digital cinema" DMD video projector so they can run multiple (currently 3) motion ads SIMULTANOUSLY. E.G. car ad on left of screen, jeans ad on right top, "join the army" ad on right bottom ALL GOING AT ONCE. Only one at a time uses the sound, thank God. Clearly this is a desprate plan to drive away the few remaining customers, or make their brains explode.

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 09-11-2000, 07:55 PM:

I don't mind ads as long as it's one that's not on tv.
Remember the old Godzilla / Dr. Pepper ads in the '80s? Made for a theater audience

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 09-11-2000, 10:59 PM:

The latest batch of Technicolor ads is particularly offensive. The ads are printed together on a single reel, but between the ads there are white lines and marks that flash on screen and look very unprofessional.
I guess projectionists will have to start carefully examining and editing the Tech ad rolls. But that's really adding too much extra work (especially in bigger plexes) when these things are changed out every four weeks.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 09-11-2000, 11:31 PM:

George - do you have that lostteeth.com junk? That's the funniest thing I've ever seen - that little 5 second bit. I don't mind playing that one, but I hate the Farmer's Insurance one.

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 09-12-2000, 12:42 AM:

What?

You've never found yourself in "another fine mess".

Steven Gorsky

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-12-2000, 01:49 AM:

Larry, why in the world is the "premium theater" auditorium running advertisements??? Don't they charge some ludicrous admission just to get in there?

George, I've already complained heavily about those marks with the new ads. Think they will do anything about it?

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 09-12-2000, 10:31 PM:

Mike,

We do have the LostTeeth.com thing. If it were any shorter, it would be a subliminal advertisement.

Posted by Wayne Cope (Member # 437) on 09-13-2000, 12:26 PM:

I stand in front of the audience and do an announcement prior to each show. Occasionally we have no previews and I mention this in the announcement. Often I am booed, and a few people ask me after the show why did we not have previews.

We also run a brief commercial (which is designed for and also shown on TV) from a video projector. This commercial is professionally made, changes ever month or so, and is for a series of live stage shows that a lot of our patrons attend, that is to say, a product they use. On the many occasions that we don't have this commercial, no patron has ever asked why did we not have the commercial. Ever.

Posted by Rachel Kovacs (Member # 602) on 09-13-2000, 02:35 PM:

We just got those Technicolor ads with the "lostteeth.com," etc., in last week, and I was not only peeved with the white lines and writng between sections, but they also spliced the Farmer's Insurance ad off-frame on one of them. When I started the movie, it was fine, but five minutes later, half of it was on the ceiling! I was, needless to say, less than impressed.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-13-2000, 02:42 PM:

How about this for a Technicolor screw up. After one of the lostteeth.com ads the farmers insurance thing was spliced on backwards.

That's right the tail was attatched to the tail of the lostteeth, they got the soundtrack right though.

Posted by Joe Grace (Member # 341) on 09-13-2000, 06:09 PM:

Speaking of "Subliminal Advertising" Is this iligal? Did anyone have to deal with it? I heard that this was done before but I havent heard of it happening today. Was it efective?

Joe

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-13-2000, 06:34 PM:

I don't know if subliminal ads are illegal or not, but whether or not they really work is unproven in real-world tests.

The old "Hungry? Buy popcorn! or "Thirsty? Drink Coke!" ads stirred up a lot of controversy. There's even some "anecdotal" evidence that they worked but nobody has, to my knowledge, ever actually done a scientific study.

At this point, I'd just chalk it up to our old friend, the Urban Ledgend.

Posted by Rachel Kovacs (Member # 602) on 09-13-2000, 09:53 PM:

Actually, I was recently told that using subliminal messages is, indeed, illegal. The discussion in question concerned usage in movies, but I'm guessing that that carries over to advertising, as well. Anyone know for sure?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-14-2000, 05:58 AM:

"BureaucRATS" would protest any subliminal advertising, as George W. Bush has recently discovered.

Posted by Bob Lee (Member # 394) on 09-14-2000, 10:33 AM:

Sometimes the ads promise more than the product delivers.

For years, Edwards Cinemas in southern California has shown ads for the Los Angeles Times. The ads show some interesting behind-the-scenes looks at film production: special effects, location scouting, dubbing, stunt driving, etc. Then the tag is "Read it in the Times."

Well, I've been reading the Times for several years now, and I've yet to see any article that even remotely covers what the ads show! The ads are among the most entertaining I've seen in cinemas anywhere, but the producers apparently have no connection with the editorial staff of the paper.

In the late 70s/early 80s, the Showcase Cinemas multiplex (East Hartford, CT) nearest my home used to show an ad for a flea market held at a drive-in about an hour+ drive away, and for a short while showed an ad for the framed pictures hanging in the lobby. The VO would lead with "Ladies and gentlemen ... the Showcase Cinemas art gallery" ... and we'd applaud simply to mock the genteel, precious tone of the ad. Both of those ads seemed a lot longer than they actually were.

------------------
-Bob Lee
Applications engineer
QSC Audio Products, Inc.
Costa Mesa, California

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 09-14-2000, 10:59 AM:

Oh, yeah.. I forgot about the Showcase Cinemas art gallery! There was a Showcase near me in New Haven CT and they had that too... dumbest thing ever.

I think that there are only laws regarding subliminal advertising on TV. If I remember, one of the things that pushed through those laws was an ad for Volkswagen. In the ad, there was just a guy staring at you, saying, "Volkswagen, Volkswagen, Volkswagen..." over and over for 30 seconds.

Posted by Zach McQuaid (Member # 613) on 09-14-2000, 02:35 PM:

"IF - you - can- read - this - you - are - smart" was a test that me and Randy performed once at an unnamed Cinema. You had to look real hard, and pay attention, but for the most part, nobody conciously noticed anything different.

Posted by Zach McQuaid (Member # 613) on 09-14-2000, 02:38 PM:

ifyoucanreadthisyouaresmart...was a test me and Randy performed once at an unnamed cinema. We didn't get any feedback, so we assumed it was true that subliminal messages work. Although illegal, I suppose it would also be a copyright infringement if you did it in the middle of a print, right?? Who knows the answer to this question?

Posted by Zach McQuaid (Member # 613) on 09-14-2000, 02:39 PM:

sorry for the double post...I didn't think the first one registered!!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-14-2000, 02:57 PM:

Use Netscape for the forum. Otherwise you must constantly remember to hit that "refresh" button on Internet Explorer.

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 09-15-2000, 03:30 PM:

Yeah, its $15.00 to get in, but -at no extra charge- they let you buy amazingly expensive snacks and booze. Warning: friends don't let friends watch films on V5's when drunk.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-16-2000, 09:27 AM:

Larry Shaw said"Warning: friends don't let friends watch films on V5's when drunk'
My experience is the opposite if you can syncronize your swaying eyeballs to the jumping picture

hic

Posted by Mervyn Collard (Member # 916) on 07-16-2001, 06:16 PM:

I don't know what you guys are complaining about commercials for. In the UK we have had them for years - OK some are bad and most weeks it's a ten minute reel. Also for a lot of theatres it pays the wage bill. Most UK theatre plays the adverts first followed by the trailers (previews) and then the feature. At least this way there is something on screen whilst the patrons are coming in.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-16-2001, 08:07 PM:

When you guys advertise your start times, is that the time the commercials start or the time the actuall movie starts?

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 07-16-2001, 08:12 PM:

We had fun with our start times. Our start times were from the beginning of the trailers. I had a start schedule--and the floor people had a schedule (start times as well as what times the show broke). The problem was that they did not figure the trailer times into the floor persons schedule. On more than one occasion the floor people griped at me because I supposedly started a show late! All of our schedules were made by the home office and faxed/e-mailed to us.

Posted by Mervyn Collard (Member # 916) on 07-20-2001, 05:28 PM:

We advertise the time the film starts not when the ads and trailers start. They normally starts about 5 minutes after the doods open.

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

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 07-23-2001, 09:19 AM:

Netscape? Are they still around?
Although I liked it, I've given up on Netscape like 90%+ of the world.
Takes forever to load and keeps crashing.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 07-24-2001, 07:26 AM:

Netscape is still around, and probably will be for a while now that it's owned by AOL Time Warner.

Netscape still handles many things better than Internet Explorer, which is why I still use it as my primary browser. For example, its cross-platform support is much better than IE's -- the Mac port of IE is inconsistent in many respects from the Windows version, and the UNIX port is still very incomplete. Netscape handles certificates and authentication much better than IE. I also feel more comfortable running a browser as just another application than as a part of the operating system. Sure, there are still JavaScript and other security exploits that can wreak havoc on my system, but fewer with Netscape than with IE. And when Netscape crashes, it's less likely to take the whole system down with it than IE.

And don't forget -- if AOL gets really mad at Microsoft, they could instantly give Netscape back its leading position by making it the default browser on AOL and Compuserve. Whether this would help or hurt their customers is another matter -- most likely, it'll result in a bunch of newbies very confused about why sites they once visited regularly now give errors. But AOL does have that leverage now that it owns Netscape -- probably one of the reasons they bought Netscape in the first place.

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by Danny Hart (Member # 659) on 07-24-2001, 06:54 PM:

Haven't had the time to real all of the posts in this thread, so I apologise if this has already been said:

Here in the UK, cinemas receive every week a reel of adverts for each film they're showing. I'm not joking but these can be up to 13 minutes in length, and very often are over that limit.

The chain I work for also has a policy of three trailers after the adverts. Then after the trailers, for all cinemas, there is the "premium ad slot", a single 30 or 40 second advert directly after the trailers and before the film.

Plus, of course, you'll have your on-screen idents, "Thank you for not smoking/turn off your mobile" etc, Kodak Screencheck trails......

When we were showing "Bridget Jones' Diary", the total running length of the pre-film stuff was 27 minutes.

If I had paid my money and gone to the cinema at the advertised time, I would be enraged at having to sit for half-an-hour to see what I had paid for.

As a result, people are now in the habit of going to the auditorium when they guess the film will be starting, and it will have already started - adding to the distraction and annoyance of people who have been there from the advertised time.

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!