Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is / is not a theater?

This is topic What is / is not a theater? 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=001656

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-16-2000, 09:58 PM:

I was reading with interest the discussion about Cobb theaters in another topic. It was interesting to me for two reasons; One, several of the people who ran Cobb now run our chain; Two, it reminds me of this story, which I've mentioned before. So at the risk of annoying y'all...:

Many years ago, I worked with an architect, Drew Eberson, on some theaters our company did. If you look in the older SMPTE projection manual, you will see photos of some of his theaters. (His father, John Eberson, created the large "atmospheric theaters" popular in the 1920's; fancy, ornate places with stars on the ceiling, etc.)

Anyway, Drew E. told me he was being called in as an expert witness for a lawsuit going on in New York city. A developer had put small "theaters" in the basement of a building, and wanted to start getting first-run product. Representatives from Fox, Paramount, Universal, etc. came and looked at the place, and said that it was so poorly made, "It is not a theater." They refused to send any prints there. (Drew E. said that in one auditorium, patrons had to duck under a sewer pipe to get to some seats. In another, anyone standing up in the first 6 rows would block the light to the screen.)

The developer sued the distributors to get first-run product. So, the issue came down to what is a theater.

Sadly, shortly after giving his testimony, Drew E. died. The case was setted out of court, so I never did learn, "What is a theater."

So, I ask anyone interested: What would a make a place "A theater / not a theater?" Fixed 2:1 masking? A screen smaller then 10 feet wide?

Remember, I'm thinking of a place that charges admission and runs first-run product.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-17-2000, 07:18 AM:

Actually, the definition of a theatre would be set by the municipal and fire codes. Personal opinions of what is/isn't a theatre are more accurately describing what is/isn't a good theatre, and are going to vary.

Bottom line in most legal definitions is: a theatre is a place of public assembly. Movies are incidental.

Re Cobb:
Bear in mind that MD was a latecomer to Cobb, and was given a lot more leeway than previous directors of operation. Chris had been around for years in Florida, but the decisions came out of Birmingham for most of that time. Chris was always high thought of, and survived many purges.

Most of the people who survived Cobb went on to bigger and better things. Brian Mercer is running a chain in the southwest, Ambrish built his own theatres, Larry Mullins rebuilt his own circuit, Bill Homer has taken over Kent Theatres, Freddie is well respected on the equipment and installation side of the business, and I've done OK as well. Cobb was an excellent training ground for a lot of people during the 80s.

BTW, Thank you for your pointing out the possibility of the award for worst designed theatre going to some other circuit than Cobb.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-17-2000, 07:45 AM:

Worse than Cobb? I didn't know that was possible.

(I'm sort of kidding).

I like the idea of studios refusing to send material to theatres that aren't up to certain standards. If the studios would stop allowing scope movies to be shown on 1.85:1-only screens at the Huntsville Regal theatres, I bet that adjustable masking would be installed at the top of those screens within two weeks!

I've often wondered what standards were in place for studios to send material to a theatre, and I believe this is the first time I've seen it discussed (expect for Star Wars Episode I -- it seemed to be required to run in the theatres' best auditoriums during its entire first run).

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

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-17-2000, 08:22 AM:

You might consider finding a place on a public sidewalk in front of the threatre, and taking up a collection for new masking and lenses. You would probably get enough publicity in local papers that the issue would come to a head. Pounding at it here seems to be beating a dead horse. You aren't going to get anyone to say you are wrong, and nobody is going to go banging on Regal's door to force them to change anything. Suppliers know where their bread is buttered, and (sad to say) when was the last time you heard of a circuit executive taking a projectionist seriously?

Distributors make unreasonable demands all the time. "We want this film to run in your largest auditorium only, for the entire length of the run." IIRC, that was the Lucas demand. Try complying when every distributor learns exhibitors will cave in to such demands and begin demanding the same treatment. Consolidated got around such "requests", and audience complaints of small auditoriums, by building their theatres with identical sized auditoriums, which sucked even worse, because you never got to see a new film on a really big screen, which, as we know, are economically unfeasable if not filled with customers regularly. Unreasonable demands result in unreasonable reactions.

Everyone knows how unreasonable trailer placement is. Trailer placement demands have only become worse over the years. A few years back, NATO fought back, but that seems to have been forgotten, now that NATO seems more interested in trade shows than political activism. (Yeah, I live dangerously )

IMO, theatre owners should have absolute and complete control over their facilities and program, except when they want to comply with a certification program.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-17-2000, 09:13 AM:

Jerry, speaking of Consolidated, I know that the University 6 (originally 4) was a Consolidated theatre at one point. Did Consolidated build that one or did they take it over at some time after it was built? That's one piece of information I was unable to find in the grand opening ads.

That theatre was built using the "pod" design where auditoriums share little of their walls with adjacent auditoriums.

See http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/images/nashville/ for pictures of several theatres, including University 6, built this way. There are also some pictures of the defunct Fountain Square 14 (not built with "pods").

Oh, and pounding the masking issue here is like beating a dead horse, but maybe more accurately it would be described at beating an old dead eaten ear of corn. (Sorry, I couldn't resist). (We need a special smiley for that, like a Kurt Cobain smiley or a Sammy Davis Jr. wink).

About trailer placement: one thing I find humorous is at the end of Regal's "girl with the man voice badly in need of a brain wrap" policy trailer, the words, "Feature Presentation" appear on the screen, which is invariable followed by one last trailer before the "feature presentation". It would have been smart to leave off the "Feature Presentation" words at the end of that beast, which can be viewed at http://www.regalcinemas.com/ .

I think Lucas's demands that Star Wars I be shown in the best auditoriums was a good one, but after the rush died down and attendance dropped, it would have been nice to be able to see other new movies in the larger auditoriums with digital sound. The requirement should probably have only covered the first 3-4 weeks of the run. Theatres affected the most by the demand were those with only one larger screen with digital sound. They couldn't show "Austin Powers 2" on their best screen with digital sound.

Evans

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-17-2000, 11:43 AM:

Evans, I don't remember the details other than R.C. and Herman(?) Stone were having a war at the time of some of the construction.

You can usually tell a Consolidated Theatre of that vintage by the hose bibb at the back of each auditorium and drain at the front. When the Consolidated theatres were regularly hosed down, no one stuck to the floor, but the wet smell was something like that found in a boy's locker room. He had a great idea, but the execution left a little to be desired.

Feature presentation snipes are a pain. I still like the old way of closing curtains after the pre-show and then opening on the film company logo.

One thing that has puzzled me is why MD didn't put in the masking during his tenure at Cobb. Oh well.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-17-2000, 12:13 PM:

If you've ever been to a planetarium. (More than just to see "Deathstars and Dinosaurs", etc. you might have heard about this planetarium being a LEVEL "X". The "level" meaning what kind of equipment it has.

Level 0 means it has just the star projector.
Level 1 means it has slide projectors
And so on.....

If a planetarium wants to "book" a show, you have to be a certain level to book that show. It might have automated control of the star field or it might use video projection. You obviously couldn't play shows like that on a level 1 or 2.

Why couldn't we bring that idea into the projection booth?
Level 1 would mean "mono" or something
Level 2 would mean stereo
and on down the line...

Studios could more easily book films if they could say, "We want to put this in level "X" theatres for its first two weeks.....

That lawsuit never would have happened if we did this.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-17-2000, 01:32 PM:

Nice idea, but the problem with grading theatres by format capabilities totally ignores actual presentation quality. Having all digital formats does no good if the horn diaphragm in the center channel loudspeaker is blown or if one of the stage channels is wired out of phase (yes, I've been to a commercial theatre that had this problem...it was painful!). Having 1.66 or Academy-format lenses is great, but not if the "projectionist" is a popcorn-popper who has no clue how to tell what the picture format of a given print is. Having Dolby SR capability is no good if you send the theatre a mono print and they still run it in SR (which is also painful). Meeting SMPTE specs for image brightness is great, but not if there are fingerprints on the port glass, etc., etc.

If anything, theatre "ratings standards" based solely upon installed equipment will encourage more of the current trend in exhibition, which seems to be to put in lots of fancy equipment and then not maintain it at all over time. This is definitely _not_ a good thing. It is also unfair to ignore some older theatre which have architectural constraints which might, for example, make side-masking for scope impractical; this might be acceptible in order to achieve a larger 1.85 image in an older house with a procenium which was originally built for 1.33 images, but which would be totally unacceptible in a newly constructed theatre.

Booking films based on such things also would totally ignore the competition as well. For example, one would be silly to build a new multiplex in a major city without digital sound capability; however, a small town theatre with Dolby A might well be the best-sounding theatre for hundreds of miles. There's just too much variation among different markets for something like this to work.

That said, I don't have a really good solution to this. I do think that the Kodak Screencheck concept is a good one. I don't have any direct experience with THX-TAP, but it certainly sounds like a really good concept, at least on paper. We can debate about the THX certifaction program implementation, but, again, I think that the idea of measurable standards and periodic re-certifications is a sound one, even if it doesn't always work well in practice and doesn't give much consideration to image quality.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-17-2000, 04:25 PM:

THX..heh. Yeah, it's a good idea on paper and the initial setup blueprints are probably worth the money, but the yearly fee is rediculous. Especially since Lucas has completely dropped the ball on yearly recertifications. After the initial system tuning, you'll never see those guys again. What this amounts to is paying thousands of dollars per year per screen for the right to play those little trailers...sheesh!

As for our "Little Girl" policy tag, it's supposed to be the last trailer coming just before the feature. Anyplace you've seen another preview trailer following it is simply not doing things right.

-Mike

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-17-2000, 08:18 PM:

George Lucas: Those in "drive-in circles" remember the whole Episode 1 debate well. Theatres had to have digital sound, had to be biggest screen, 8 week run minimum, no double-features. It wasn't long before we heard of indoors installing DTS to mono,
the drive-in that installed DTS to FM stereo.
Heck, I saw Episode 1 second-week of it's run as part of a triple-feature outdoors on a screen with a hole in it in analog mono FM!
Imagine a day when every film is available to every owner off the break! The guys on this forum will have no problems then!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-17-2000, 10:56 PM:

I agree; it's hard to say whether a theater is, or is not, acceptable. While I feel fixed 2:1 masking is unacceptable, if everything else was OK, I'd grumble, but let it go. I guess I'd just have to see them for myself. And if people continue to go to a theater, then that place must be acceptable. People vote with their dollars, and if a place makes money, then by definition, it's good enough.

I don't know if I'd be a good judge of a place, because I have only projected (never managed or had to worry about bugets and payroll, etc.) So, I think theaters should be designed from the booth out. In real life, I know this is not possible.

THX, while not perfect, does make theaters do some things that are not easily removable, ie: rubber isolation mounts on AC equipment. While it true the speakers can blow out, amps die, etc., at least you know, at one time, the place was fairly well designed.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-19-2000, 11:49 AM:

I checked out Evans' web-site -- and I must say -- I love seeing other people take over AMC theatres... (re: Fountain Square 14) because they always leave that annoying AMC FONT for "14 Theatres" but add their logo before it... It's lame looking.

I also must wonder what this world has come to that 14 screen theatres are being closed down. Century just opened an 18-Screen in Las Vegas and closed their OWN 16-Screen down the road. WHAT are these people doing?

-Scott-

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-19-2000, 06:58 PM:

It's like what Carmike did near the Cool Springs Galleria at Franklin, TN (just south of Nashville). They built a 10 screen multiplex near the mall around the time it was built (1992), and then about a year ago, Carmike opened a 20-screen multiplex a mile or two away! Needless to say, the 10-screen was closed and its last night of business was August 17, 2000. They put their OWN theatre out of commission there!

Evans

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 11-21-2000, 02:40 PM:

In regards to the new Carmike "Thorobred 20" @ Cool Springs in Franklin, TN. It's a gorgeous example of what can be done with concrete block and stucco. It resembles more of an office park than it does a theatre. Cute little statues, water fountains and crap. It has the ugliest marquee's I've seen in a while. Very plain vanilla - almost looks as if they were an afterthought.

((Regal's Hollywood 27 in Nashville - THAT'S A MARQUEE !!)) - Although their signs which post the show title's are uglier than Carmikes.

I too was amazed to see Carmike close an 8 year old theatre - what a waste. It was PRIME real estate. They closed a relatively new 8 plex on Highway 96 in Franklin several years ago when they opened the original Cool Springs location. Now they BOTH sit empty.

I wish I had fraction of that type of money to throw away!!

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 07-01-2011, 11:02 PM:

It has been 3874 days since the last post.