We've had a good exchange of thoughts in Bill Enos' topic "Getting More Damaged Prints," including that managers should try and train operators as best they can and not turn them loose "solo" too soon, and yet it was implied that if all you can get is high school teenagers, because wages are so low, well.... ? Results aren't going to be very good and certainly not reliable nor consistent.

I haven't been here at film-tech too long, and yet in a short time I've seen we have a diverse mix of people ranging from young "just-starting," to folks who have "risen" to the rank of manager/projectionist but might not be paid much 'cause they're young [?,] to those who are career general managers of larger multiplexes, and still others who are primarily management exclusively and owners.

Then there is this old-fogey rotter called Schmidt here who occasionally recites various heresies, daring to suggest that maybe... just maybe, the industry might have better results, presentation and far less film damage if it would be willing to recognize projection as a craft again... that a projectionist is a key person in a multiplex equal in importance to the manager... and that if the industry wants to RETAIN anybody who is any good, be it manager or projectionist, it needs to pay better salaries.

I wonder if the status of prints themselves has not denigrated to being only an unavoidable expense of a consumable: something that isn't going to last very long anyway, 98% of which will go to salvage/recycling in 4-6 months and nobody cares?

I think the STUDIOS who make the movies have to get interested in the first place -- sufficiently so that all prints from carmike and other circuits with a bad rep will go straight back from 1st run to a film exchange and be checked, with full replacement costs to be assessed if there is damage or scratches. For example, many years ago Disney was very particular about the condition of its release prints. It DISCARDED whole reels otherwise perfect just for having 3 or 4 splices in them.

I have read here the opinion that if you have a multiplex run on platters WITH a competent projectionist, + a film-cleaning system with the FilmGuard product, prints will run hundreds of times without problems and leave in perfect or near-new condition just as they arrived. Unfortunately, this usually isn't the case... mostly what there is are platter systems run by kids @ minimum wage who don't care [why should they?] and all these reports of prints heavily scratched and nearly wrecked in only 3-7 days. The kids are more interested in making out in the dark behind a sound rack.

The IATSE unions were replete with problems, including corruption, but at least there were projectionists getting good pay, which led to consistency and a certain level of reliability as to the picture on the screen.

It also happens that the union is the natural enemy of the corporate structure; which if it has its way won't pay more than minimum wage to anyone if it can avoid doing so. Well, today the corporate structure has its wish. Everything is running at minimum wage, look at the mess, poor presentation all over, and all the film damage. IS THIS GOOD?

So now poor ole Schmidt is gonna get roasted again for saying that things will be better if the booth were restored to being regarded as a skilled craft and a prestige occupation with some status, carrying with it good pay and some fringe benefits.

If this is not so... then how would YOU solve the problem? Suggestions please.

Is projection and presentation important? You bet it is. Probably 10 times more important than the floor operations, which in themselves are also extremely important. But I don't think projectionists should get paid 10 times what everyone else makes. I think they should start out at a low wage, just like everyone else. Once they have proven their worth, competance, and reliability, then they should be given a substantial pay increase to make sure they don't go anywhere. A living wage. $11 an hour is pathetic nowadays.

There is not one simple solution. I think the theater industry is very content with the way it treats projectionists. They are run by corporations. They are concerned not with presentation, only increasing revenue. Since the managers are the ones dealing with the $$$, they get paid the $$$ so they handle the $$$ properly. There is nothing you could say to a movie chain to change its mind about this. Ain't gonna happen. The golden age of movies is over. Sorry.

A booth that does run platters, has competant projectionists and uses FilmGuard always achieves excellent results. If they are not getting excellent results then they have a bad projectionist. Prints leave in better than new condition. They run smoother, quieter and steadier. Brad did not pay me to say that, but I should charge him

Demetris Thoupis

"For Strength And Honour"
 

My day job is not cinema related but my real passion is spending my "off-duty" time working with independant exhibitors. Anyhow, recently I was at my day job and overheard a co-worker ask another if he'd seen a certain just released film. The recipient of the question responded, "No, I think I'll wait to see it on DVD. It will look just as good on my home theatre system as in the theatre and I won't have to worry about people around me talking." Unfortunately, this is certainly not the first time I've heard this or a similar response from someone.

I've long believed that the industry is getting further and further away from the days when a motion picture theatre was your respite from the stresses of the world, a place to escape and live in a fantasy world, at least for a few hours. I'm not suggesting that we return to the time when plush ornate single screen palaces were the rule, I realize that's not practical or cost effective, but I would like to see a return to a time where ushers keep order, professional presentation can be expected and is not a rare find, and theatre management emphasizes showmanship. These are the kind of things that distinguish the cinema experience from watching a movie at home. Without them I believe that going to the movie theatre is less magical and fun and moviegoers will be more apt to substitute others forms of entertainment in place of going out to a movie.

In summary, if people find it more enjoyable to see a movie at home, that's what they'll do. Even if you build a multi-million dollar building, that by itself is not enough if the quality of presentation and other problems detract from the experience.

If the industry returns to providing patrons with a total entertainment package that includes good product, good presentation, good food, and a great place to see a movie that can't be rivaled by the home environment, then you've given people a reason to go to the movie theatre. I'm sure many of you on this forum do all the things that make going to the cinema a magical experience. I know some of you personally and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is still being done in the year 2001. However, I also know that some of the theatres I've attended have left even ME wanting to leave and wait for the film to be released on DVD. That's bad, considering how tolerant I usually am with theatre operators since I understand what they are up against when running their theatres and how much I love watching film as a communal experience.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
 

CONSISTENCY is a real issue. I recently attended two different screenings of the same movie at the same theatre. On one screen, two reels had severe emulsion scratches lasting minutes, and the film was presented on a dim screen with terrible illumination uniformity and lamp flicker (the xenon lamp was probably at the end of life). The other screening on the same sized screen was PERFECT --- no dirt, no scratches, bright and uniform image, excellent sound.

I told the manager about the problem screen, and he thanked me, noting that no one else had complained about the scratches or dim screen. He promised to get the problems fixed. IMHO, although no one else had complained, many seeing that substandard presentation would hesitate in coming back again.

"Film Done Right" is easy to do, and just good common sense. But "doing film right" consistently, day-in and day-out, does require knowledgeable, skilled and caring people in the booth, and not just on Thursdays .

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

The problem with most theatres nowadays is the management and booth staff are incompetent and don't care about presentation defects unless too many people complain (which they usually don't unless the movie borders on being unwatchable). The companies as a whole do not care about their quality of operations as much as they care about saving every dime.

In my area, there are Carmike and Regal theatres. Each company has an excellent, well-maintained theatre and a horrible, poorly maintained theatre. You'd think Regal would care enough to try to make their Huntsville theatres as well-run as their Decatur location. You'd think Carmike would try to make their Decatur location as well-run as their Huntsville location. It amazes me.

It's no wonder that many people I know have given up on theatres. Many have not given up on movie theatres in general, but on specific theatres. Carmike 8 in Decatur and Regal Madison Square 12 in Huntsville are two that have very bad reputations. On the "Shrek" thead, I mentioned that one of my friends said that he'd rather see "Shrek" misframed at Regal Hollywood 18 than see it at Madison Square 12. For a person to say that, they've got to have pretty strong feelings against Madison Square 12. Even I would not make that statement, since I've seen good presentations there. The Carmike 8 in Decatur has the sloppiest presentations of anyone. If the Huntsville Regal theatres had adjustable masking in all their auditoriums, Carmike 8 would be the worst theatre. On the average, there will be at least two or three defects of some sort in every presentation.

With home theatre equipment becoming cheaper, better, and more affordable every month, we have the choice of seeing a movie in a theatre knowing 23 percent of the image may be missing at the Huntsvile Regals, that the presentation is likely to be sloppy at Carmike 8 or Madison Square 12. When the ads show that the movie we want to see is not playing at Carmike 10 or Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, we're less likely to want to see it and will be more likely to wait for the DVD. In fact, the only reason I see many movies in those theates are to keep my ratings up to date. If I were a typical customer, Carmike 10 and Regal River Oaks 8 would be the only theatres I'd visit.

If theatre companies in my area want to keep customers in the long run with competition from DVD and home theatre, they need to do the following:

Carmike 8: Get competent management and staff, make needed adjustments and repairs to projection equipment, and upgrade the sound systems that are in terrible condition. Teach staff to recognize presentation defects. Do something about the poor cosmetic condition of the facility.

Regal Madison Square 12: Get competent management and staff. Install adjustable screen masking in auditoriums 3-6 and 9-12. Finish the promised digital sound system upgrades in all the auditoriums. Fix the DTS readers you already have so the sound does not drop out all the time.

Regal Hollywood 18: Install adjustable screen masking in auditorums 3-8 and 11-16. Presentation consistency is pretty good, but check them a little more carefully and thoroughly and fix problems that are noticed.

If these suggestions are not followed, these three theatres (especially the top 2) are probably going to be the ones that will lose their customer base the quickest.

The above (mentioning specific theatres and imrpovements needed) could be done for any city of any size. I suspect that similar conditions could be found all over the country.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

1. Training. If a person is not properly trained, expecting them to do a good job is like expecting a reader of science fiction to design and launch an earth orbiting rocket. It can happen, but the chances of there being problems are huge. Training is the area that was best served by the unions, although some of the training was undoubtedly very dated.

Not every projectionist will be a tech, nor should they be, but a core training program is imperative. A video tape or printed instructions can be nice, but ultimately this is a hands on activity, where immediate feedback is required to prevent bad habits from developing in the first place.

The skill of being able to train people is a skill in itself. Ideally, each area should have a person designated as a trainer, and that person should be validated by the techs as having the competence for the task.

2. Responsibility and recording. Theatre management needs to spot check at least the final shows of a day or shift for scratches and damage. If there is damge it needs to be recorded and the projectionist held accountable. This leads to the next part, pay.

3. A projectionist's pay should not be all flat rate. A portion of it should be subject to presentation quality, and a portion subject to print damage. The details could vary, but the idea is that every print damaged would result in a loss of pay, and every out of focus or out of frame presentation would result in a loss of pay. After a preset limit was met, the projectionist would be let go. Each incidence of damage would be forgiven only after six months or a year, to prevent older projectionists from racking up points as they improved and had fewer problems. Good projectionists would earn more, regardless of age or length of service.

4. A return to prints being placed at theatres in time for proper make-up and inspection. If it takes a major chain refusing to show prints until they have had inspection screenings, then so be it. The distribution system usually squeeks by with new prints from the lab, but since prints are not inspected after each run, the theatre receiving a bad print is stuck between a rock and a hard place. That theatre can refuse to show the print and piss-off the audience, or show the print and piss-off the audience. Either of these two scenarios will cause people to avoid returning to the theatre. Distributors sending out a damaged print should be fined.

5. Strict enforcement of fines for damaged prints at a rate of twice the cost of the damaged reel. Distribution is _stupid_ in this regard. If prints were inspected after each run, and a database of damage kept, the revenues from fines could easily outweigh the cost of the inspections. When exhibitors have to pay for the damage their incompetent employees and shitty equipment cause, the cost of paying competent personnel and keeping equipment maintained will seem a more reasonable alternative.

7. Death squads. Distributors could send tech representatives to theatres with the authority to stop a show and demand the print back. A damaged print or show run out of frame would result in that print being pulled without replacement. The loss of revenue would kill theatres that were habitual print damagers.

8. Reasonable film terms. Sucking the blood out of exhibitors prevents them from having the funds needed to do the job right. The "creative accounting" and rip-off terms of Hollywood are a disgrace to everyone in the industry.

 

For example, if Universal went to Regal Hollywood 18 or Regal Madison Sqaure 12 here in Huntsville and found "The Mummy Returns" being shown at 1.85:1 in one of the small auditoriums, they should not allow these theatres to get any more Universal prints until adjustable masking is installed. If Dreamworks found a presentation of "Shrek" at Carmike 8 in Decatur noticeable out of focus on one side, they should be given a warning that future inspections showing such defects would result in loss of Dreamworks films until problems are corrected, and there should be a "probation" type of period afterwards to keep close checks on such facilities.

I don't believe theatres are going to get any better as far as film presentation goes unless they are punished for defective presentations. They'll probably get worse if the current trend continues. Presentations problems in my area are about the same as they were in 1997. Managers have told me about upgrades that were going to be made and have talked about attempting to improve presentations. I haven't seen it. The renovation of Carmike 8 never happened. The digital sound systems never got installed at Madison Square 12 like the staff thought would happen. The adjustable masking mentioned in October 1999 Huntsville Times for Regal Hollywood 18 that a booth person said would be installed "some time within the next year" didn't happen.

When customers do complain, they typically get the impression from talking to the staff that more care will be put into presentation and that upgrades will occur. I've found such talk to be meaningless, and I don't even bother printing it as news on my theatre information WWW site because I've found that information from theatre staff, and even management, are very unreliable.

This being the case, if theatres are staying the same or getting worse, and home theatre systems are constantly improving, I believe in a couple of years when larger screens are available and when most people will be using progressive scan players and Dolby Digital and DTS systems, theatres will have competition from their own customers!

In Gadsden, Regal operated the Rainbow Cinemas (8-plex). It was an old Fairlane-Litchfiled theatre. Recently, Hamilton Theatres took it over and upgraded the sound systems and increased the size of the back 4 auditoriums. Isn't it strange that smaller companies seem to be doing better as far as upgrades in comparison to the giants like Regal and Carmike?

I wonder if the Regal Hollywood 18 and Regal Madison Square 12 would be better run if they were operated by a smaller company? I'll bet that the adjustable masking and other upgrades would be more likely to happen.

Do you think that we're headed toward a return to theatres being operated by smaller, more localized companies, such as Hamilton Theatres? Each city, back in the 60s and 70s, seemed to have its own local theatre company that ran most of the theatres in town, like Rosenbaum Theatres, Crescent Theatres, and United Amusements. Would theatres be run better if there was a return to those types of companies?

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

I didn't see "Gladiator" until it came out on DVD --not really that I chose to wait; i just never really got around to seeing it while it was on the big screen. Well, the fact is the only Lawton theater playing it at the time was the Hollywood Theaters Cache 8 (better known as the "Crap 8"), and I wasn't giving that dump any of my money. A movie theater has to offer good projection quality and good sound quality to get me through the box office. That means the corporate people need to put money into making their commercial theaters BETTER and not just building more run of the mill screens. It also helps for the staff to like movies and care about how well they are shown. I still prefer to see movies in commercial theaters, but DVD offers a good alternative if your only choice for seeing a film is paying $7 to enter a dive.

DVD now offers better sound quality on its audio tracks than the audio tracks found on 35mm film prints. Dolby Digital theatrical at 320kb/s is not very good. The 384kb/s and 448kb/s versions on DVD make a big difference. DTS runs at 820kb/s in its theatrical version, but the DTS CAC codec in the home version is more advanced. The 754kb/s DTS mode is similar in data rate to the theatrical system, whereas the 1509kb/s version of DTS nearly doubles the data rate. Even the CDs, encoded at 1234kb/s, sound incredible. On top of that, DTS-ES 6.1 offers something commercial cinemas don't have: discrete three channel surround.

Near field speakers in home theater systems are generally more precise that array driven commercial speaker layouts. My home system features a nice Yamaha receiver and set of Paradigm speakers. It is not really "high end" but anyone that has been in my living room has been really blown away by the audio experience.

Commercial theaters can achieve a lot of the same capability. As good as my home theater sounds, I still feel that it doesn't outdo some of the best commercial installations I have visited. The deceased Northpark #1 THX theater was incredible, and quite arguably the best quality theater I have ever visited (and that includes comparisons with any movie theater in New York City). But you don't have to have a giant screen and enough sound system wattage to power a small city to have enthralling audio quality. The money guys in the corporate offices just have to be willing to invest in it and put on a good show.

My feeling is the commercial theater industry needs to consolidate and get rid on many outmoded auditoriums. Concentration has to be set on improving absolute image and sound quality on a screen by screen basis. Some of that also means getting better projection and sound formats going. I still believe 70mm projection is the answer for bright, sharp images --not DLP. 5.1 channel audio is not good enough for a commercial venue. 10.2 Surround would be much better --and the technology is already in place to do it. It is just the matter of a company like DTS or Dolby Labs just working with a film studio to debut it. Commercial theaters need to be able to distinguish themselves apart from home theater in terms of picture and sound. With DLP the opposite will happen and actually push more people into just waiting for the DVD.

Service is the other end of the equation. Clean carpets, clean movie screens and a friendly, knowledgeable staff will do wonders for keeping the same people coming back to your theater on a regular basis. Put on a good show and they'll feel like they got their money's worth. Theaters that don't care assume they are getting the money anyway, but they cannot see how many people are not coming back to their theater. They cannot see how many are just waiting to visit the video store.
 

However you must keep in mind that the average home theater sound system is nowhere near the average movie theater sound system in quality. In the theater, you can have much more control over the EQ and other various settings than in the home. Most home theater tuners don't even have an EQ adjustment, and many people don't even bother to set the levels on each channel with a quality DB meter. The same can be said for the movie theater, however... many are not set up properly and therefore sound bad.

Then there is the issue of the center channel speaker. What the hell is up with havin' two giant ass speakers for the left and right, but this little wimpy ass thing for the center channel, which is the most important speaker in the setup? Do you really think that wimpy speaker has the same output as the other two? No way. And if you send the bass that is supposed to go to the center channel over to the left and right speakers (bass management) that distorts the original mix even further unless you are sitting dead center.

My home theater sounds pretty damn good, I'll admit. I can vibrate the room with bass without turning on the subwoofer. I made sure I set up everything as close to a real theater as I possibly can, since I know how real theaters are set up and how they are supposed to sound. But when I drive up to a friend's house, he has waaaaaay too much subwoofer (it also sounds "hollow") and the levels are way off. People seem to think that the more subwoofer you have, the better it sounds. Not true.

"It's the SIZE of the sound that makes it better," he said.

Says it all.
 

People will think:

Why go to a local theatre and see 77 percent of a movie when I can get the DVD and see it all? Gee, didn't that used to be an advetising point of theatre vs. TV, and now it's the other way around in Huntsville.

Why listen to distorted, poor quality analog sound in a theatre when I can have Dolby Digital or DTS at home?

Since the theatre projector operators don't seem to know what they're doing a significant part of the time, why bother paying one third the price of a DVD to see a movie there? People I've talked to expect people running the place to know how to show movies properly; after all, it is a theatre's purpose for existing. When people slowly come to the realization that the people up there are just kids being paid rather poor wages and have never been properly trained, they'll say, "Well I can do better than that at home."

Theatres are not keeping up with available technology quickly enough to keep people satisfied. The chains were very unwise to go crazy building new theatres all over the place leaving them unable to maintain and update the theatres they already had.

I'm making a point to ask more of my friends if they go see movies often to see what they say. When I ask 10 different friends if they've seen a particulr great movie that has been out a couple of months (at the time) and 8 of them say no, that's a bad sign that people are staying away from theatres in droves. The most common complaints I hear are that ticket prices are too high and that there are too many problems with the presentations. Many tell me they can't read some of the opening and closing credits sometimes because the words go off the screen, although they don't know why it's happening. Many people notice sound problems more than image problems. Digital sound cutting out is a very common problem here.

Concerning "Shrek" at Hollywood 18, I wondered if the showings in other auditoriums were better than the misframed one I saw once (and almost twice), and found out that in the showing in another auditorium that several of my friends went to see, they had problems with the digital sound cutting out. I know now that two out of their three showings of "Shrek" on opening weekend had problems bad enough to make people wonder if they should go back, and I keep seeing these problems over and over in three different theatres.

If theatre chains don't get their act together soon and make these problems rarities rather than the norm, home theatre will win out.

Of course, seat kickers, talkers, cell phones, and crying babies and little kids are a real problem in some shows, and make some people want to watch movies at home.

I've read the posts I've made during the previous week and they're all quite negative. (Depressing, actually). I don't mean to sound so negative or have a negative attitude. I really do wish some sort of change would occur for the better in the theatre industry. The past weekend (Friday through Monday) at the theatres here really depressed me.

A "revival" of interest in showmanship and quality of presentation could only be caused by two things that I could think of:

1. Customers becoming educated and less apathetic and demanding better quality presentations and refusing to pay for poorly-presented or incompletely-presented movies.

2. Studios inspecting presentations and not allowing bad theatres to show their movies if their presentations are sub-par, and not allowing them to show their movies until the problems can be shown to have been remedied.

Maybe something good will happen soon. There needs to be a revolution in the movie exhibition industry if it is going to survive against home theatre, and DLP is not the answer, unless the resolution can be brought up to film standards.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

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

 

The big difficulty is matter of educating home theater users how to set up and use their equipment properly. Most people just plug in the hardware, set the speakers where-ever and just hit "play." This is a problem, but it is not like the home theater market is without lots of solutions. My home sound system is set up properly and it really sounds excellent.

Commercial theaters have the unfortunate difficulty of manipulating a lot more cubic area of air in a room. This is also why I contend normal seated auditoriums sound better than most stadium seated rooms. Those high ceilings and hundreds of extra feet of cubic air space do a lot to suck out much of the sound quality capability. In a really large house you can wind up with thin, muddy sound quality all messed up with echo if the right kinds of speakers and amplification are not chosen. In many instances, commercial theater builds just stick the same kind of speakers and amplifiers in all the auditoriums regardless of their size and cubic airspace.

Then you have these abominations of sound system design perpetrated by the likes of AMC Theaters where surround speakers are placed all up in the ceiling.

Commercial venues can also have additional challenges in sub-bass reproduction. The large amount of cubic airspace, particularly in a stadium seated house can rob a lot of bass out of a signal. A large auditorium may need eight or more 18-inch drivers with lots of amp power to get the right kind of "beef" happening. That's going to cost some money. But then the theater also has to contend with audio leakage through walls into another auditorium if they want to spend the money in the first place. A home system may only need a good 10 inch or 12 inch sub with 400 watts of power to achieve rib-rattling bass response. The near field sound environment just has far fewer challenges than a commercial venue.
 

You started a good one here! I'm new to film-tech, but not to the industry. Been involved for over 30 years part time. I recently retired from teaching and now have the pleasure of working as the projection operations manager at a local 13 screen multiplex on a full time basis.

The industry must do a better job of showmanship and presentation or we will all be on the outside looking in. I wish all operators were like the people who post threads and replys on this site, but the reality of the situation is that many in the industry are not like that.

I"m going to throw my two cents in here and say that Jerry's post most closely hit the nail on the head. Training is the first line of defense. Operators need to be trained by a competent person who has both the knowledge of the booth and the ability to relate it to others. You can not rely on training one operator and then having him/her train the next one. One person must train so that everyone else is on the same page, and the procedures learned must be followed by everyone. No exceptions!!

I've worked union and non-union and agree with the fact that you have to love the job if you are going to be any good at projection work. If you are lucky enough to find these people (and they do exist), then the next step is to properly supervise them. This requires constantly checking the quality of their work, retraining when necessary, and axing those who do not meet your standards.

Incentive is a must. In addition to providing adequate and fair pay, you need to constantly give a pat on the back and reward those who are doing a good job. We have a board in the booth with the number of days of scratchfree presentations listed, as well as the number of days without an interrupted show. The staff really gets into it, and there are incentives involved as the numbers grow.

Mistakes are a part of life. Is there one person who posts on this site who has not made one? Of course not. The goal is to learn from your mistakes. Those who do not should not last long in any booth.

Punish for damaged prints? That's okay, but the real punishment comes form the audience. In my many years of dealing with people who patronize our industry, I have learned that it is the dissatisfied customer who never says a word that is our most dangerous one. THEY ARE NEVER COMING BACK!

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

 

I think the biggest reason for people stopping going out to movies is "other moviegoers."

My wife and I were on vacation in Florida last week, and decided to see a DLP of "Shrek" at the AMC Pleasure Island 24 in Downtown Disney. (I had never had a chance to see a digital cinema show yet.)

The presentation was flawless, in fact better than I expected. I was looking for some clue that I was looking at a non-film presentation (other than a lack of dust or scratches on the screen). There was none.

Also, the theatre was spotless; the people out front were friendly and polite to us.

The only problem with the evening was...you guessed it...other moviegoers. One woman in particular received FOUR calls on her cell phone during the movie, and instead of getting up and leaving during her calls, she sat there and yakked right in her seat.

Did I complain to management? Yep, on the third call. I told them what auditorium/row the offender was seated in. They sent a guy in to watch the crowd for about 25 minutes, but naturally while he was there, her #%$@ phone did not ring. Soon as he left, as if on cue, the damn phone rang again and she was talking again.

Anytime somebody asks me what's the best night to see a movie, I tell them the slowest night of the week. It is sad.
 

Perhaps if they rendered the movie (a lot) closer to film resolution, it would help (although it wouldn't help them!). That trailer looked about one quarter or less than the resolution and sharpness that we're typically used to seeing. Well, they may be able to fool some of the public, but they can't fool the ASC.

Like other entirely-CG movies, it is just more 'native' to DLP exhibition than it is to film, but showing something like 'Moulin Rouge' on DLP would tell another story entirely. Now would someone PLEASE level the playing field?
 

"My wife and I were on vacation in Florida last week, and decided to see a DLP of "Shrek" at the AMC Pleasure Island 24 in Downtown Disney. (I had never had a chance to see a digital cinema show yet.) The presentation was flawless, in fact better than I expected. I was looking for some clue that I was looking at a non-film presentation (other than a lack of dust or scratches on the screen). There was none. Also, the theatre was spotless; the people out front were friendly and polite to us."

I agree that Digital Cinema looks especially good with animation that has been transferred directly for digital presentation. When I saw a Digital Cinema presentation of the live-action "Very Mean Men" at ShowEast in the AMC Pleasure Island last October, I sat in about the tenth row, fairly close to the screen. The image was flawed by the visibility of the 1280 x 1024 pixel structure at that distance, and did seem unsharp and lacking in contrast. But further back, and with digital animation, I'm sure it would look very acceptable.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

quote:

---

I think the biggest reason for people stopping going out to movies is "other moviegoers."

---

I agree. Often times, I'm more irritated by the rudeness of other people in the audience than by presentation flaws.

Why can't theatres jsut do the following:

1. Do not allow cell phones in auditoriums.

They have no purpose in a theatre except to annoy others.

2. Do not allow children under a certain age (say, 5) into a movie. Eliminating crying babies would help tremendously. Many shows have been ruined by babies and kids crying, especially during quiet scenes. [Being around young children is the best birth control there ever was. ]

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about people who constantly kick or nudge the seats in front of them with their feet. Many theates have their rows so close together that it is easy to do by accident. Some people like to prop their feet against something, like the seat in front of them, so every time they shift or move, everyone in front of them feels it too.

Even worse are people who put their feet over the back of the chair in front of them. I've actually had people behind me to put their feet over the back of the chair next to me with their feet right next to my head. I usually move, if possible, when they do that.

If enough extra seats are available, I've found myself moving two or three times before the show started just to get away from seat kickers or cell phone sluts.

Is it just me, or are people getting a lot ruder lately? Is the cell phone psychology a cause of this "new rudeness" (the "I don't care how what I do affects anyone else around me" attitude?) I have some friends that I can barely enjoy their company any more because they carry their cell phone everywhere and get and make calls when I'm with them, like in restaurants.

Another thing about cell phones: Why does their ring have to be so f*cking loud (sorry, but I do hate these things) and why do they have to play these irritating, silly tunes when they ring. Do cell phone manufacturers have to make sure that everyone within a 100 foot radius knows that their customers have a cell phone? Why not have a quieter, discreet, non-disturbing ring that can be heard within a very few feet?

I'll say it again, to get people back in theatres:

0. If your theatre has presentation problems, get them fixed. Show us how good 35mm can look when done right.

1. Ban cell phones.

2. Do not allow children under 5 (or 4 or 6 or whatever the "not crying age" starts).

Then again, these jerks should have some manners. It's the me,me,me generation all over again. It's like people are saying, "I'll talk on my phone whenever and wherever I darn well please!"

Get a life folks. If you're not a MD or similar, I bet you could go 2 hrs. without the cell phone watching a movie.

Have you ever been near one of these persons in the auditorium? They talk loud enough you don't have to evesdrop. The conversations are usually pretty stupid.

In a movie....

RING! RING! (as loud as possible) for the record...you can buy phones with silent alerts just like pagers.

Fumble, thrash, shuffle. Finds phone.
"OH, HI!! WHAT'S UP!! I'M DOING NOTHING!! WATCHING A MOVIE!!"

This useless drivel,drivel,yada,yada continues for a good 3-5 minutes inside the auditorium with the violator acting as if this was no different than breathing.

I paid good money to see this film too. I want to hear the soundtrack, not someone's shopping list, love life, or their day's activities. I guess that's another reason why I love the drive-in. If you get to loud, the Delco will drown you out.

--Chris
 

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

CLICK HERE

I recall saying that the real threat to movie theatres is NOT Digital Cinema. It is Digital Cinema technology applied to the home theatre environment. We're already seeing DLP technology being used in some high end home theatre systems, and TIVO is a home version of a movie server. High Definition DVDs are on the way, and satellite HDTV is a reality.

IMHO, the "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" for many "Digital Cinema" (electronics and communications) companies does not lie in a few thousand theatres, but in millions of homes.

If theatres treat Digital Cinema as a panacea for their current woes and don't improve the basics of presentation and showmanship NOW, the parade will pass them by, and home theatre "couch potatoes" will rule. Whether it's "Film Done Right" or "Digital Done Right", theatres MUST provide something much better than people can get in their homes.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

While home theatre can currently give me only 720x480 resolution, it looks better than a lot of the dim or out-of-focus or misframed or cropped presentations I frequently see here locally.

Professional quality must come back to theatres or their days will be numbered.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site
 

quote:

---

Cell phones have the technology to be unobtrusive so people can be available to help with emergencies 24/7 without annoying others. Don't blame the phones, blame the inconsiderate users.

---

I'll bet that many users of cell phones dont' even bother to read their manuals to learn about their politeness features. Most people seem content with the default annoying loud primitive tone-based tune rings. Most people probably want everyone around them to know they have a cell phone (the coolness or importance factor that went out two or three years ago), and they're perfectly content to ruin movie experiences, or have their phones ring in church. Manners and politeness are becoming a things of the past, and it hurts movie theatres and similar gatherings of people.

If jammers are illegal in theatres, what about detectors at the doors that go off if a cell phone is detected? That would avoid the legal problem of restricting cell phone signals in the building, but would simply solve the problems by not allowing the things in the building to start with. If the detectors gave off a loud beep that got the attention of everyone else in the lobby so that all other people would look at them when it happened, I'll bet people would stop bringing them in. (embarrassment factor)

Question: How often do cell phones send a signal to "handshake" with the closest cell array to keep track of location? If the signal is frequent enough, designing a local "cell phone emission" detector should be practical, and probably very marketable to theatres, churches and hospitals (where cell phones can interfer with medical equipment).

A simple metal detector would yield too many "hits" to be used in a theatre (although some of the other threads on theatre violence show finding guns and knives is a priority for some theatres too).

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

I have a sign in the theatre, "Please turn off cell phones and beepers." Can't count the number of people who have said, "well, how is the babysitter supposed to call me," etc. I can't believe these people can't trust their little nippers in the care of a trusted person for two frickin' hours.
 

You get what you pay for, folks!

Maybe this would be a good discussion topic: What IS a good adult ticket price for a movie in a theatre? Here in Montana, the larger towns tend to charge around $6.50 to $6.75 (most of the bigger towns have Carmike screens). The cheapest one I know of is $4.75, but they are in a very small town playing several months after the break.

(Of course I'm not including dollar/discount houses in this.)
 

Jeff Joseph writes on 35mmfilms.com:
"Technicolor will only confirm 6 [dye transfer] prints at this point ... 3 are in New York ... 3 are in Los Angeles"

Christopher Seo writes:
"The regular run print I made up was on 2383. The stunning EKs were on 2393, but the regular prints don't seem too shabby either."

My, my. It must be nice to be able to see a top quality print. Sure wish I could.

If the studio/distributor can't be bothered to send a dye transfer or 2393 Vision print to Chicago, and put it in a competently run theatre, then I won't be bothered to lay out my money to see the film.

Seems like the only way to vote is with my wallet.
 

I was lucky enough to get to see the 70mm print of "2001: a space odessy" at the Bradford Film Festival, the presentation was flawless and I was reminded what a powerful experince "film done right" can be.

The tickets for the show were quite expensive £10 ($15ish), but the show sold out - people are prepaired to pay for quality of 70mm.
 

My point is, only very rarely does anything comes out of Hollywood these days that's original and new.

------------------
All my best
Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

I've no interest in cannibalism, get bored with the horror movies of today, and find that films are more and more being made exclusively for the teenage set.

There is no amount of "film done right" on the exhibitor end that will stop this trend or stop adults from looking to other sources of entertainment.

I've watched far more films this years off TCM than I've watched in the theatres in the past three years. For example, I've got my tivo set to record all 4.5 hours of "The Sorrow and the Pity" (you might remember it as the film referred to in the Woody Allen film "Annie Hall") and enjoyed a Hitchcock retrospective last month.

I am being driven from theatres, not because of bad presentation, but because of bad product. Price isn't a factor, travel time isn't a factor, presentation isn't a major factor. My interest has turned to Facets rentals and I'm beginning to check out Netflix as an alternate source of stuff I want to see. I also am simultaniously reading four books to get the depth fix that I used to get out of film. I miss the group experience, but I may end up looking for like-minded people to invite over for an evening of real entertainment.

When I see a big budget film like Pearl Harbor totally twisting the history of a conflict like the cheesy romantic war films of the 1930s, and mis-use CGI to show out-of-scale fighter planes playing Star Wars slot tag, I don't trust the mainstream films today any more than I trusted the over-hyped drive-in fare of the 1970s.

Pearl Harbor is a disservice to both the moviegoer and those who served in the Pacific Theatre. As drive-ins found out, you can't continue to try to fool the audience into attending while providing crap. Eventually they learn, and go away.

 

------------------
Mark DeLettera
Eastman Kodak Co.
Worldwide Technical Svs.
Rochester, NY
mark.delettera@kodak.com
716-588-4189
 

I got interested in this thought, so I tallied all the movies I've seen in theatres that I've seen since January 1, 2000, eliminating duplicates and movies not released on DVD as of May 31, 2001. I've seen 47 different movies (some more than once) in first-run theatres in Huntsville and Decatur during this time period that have been released on DVD. Of those 47, I have bought 29 of them on DVD. This means that of the 47 movies seen since the beginning of 2000, 62 percent of them have been considered "good" enough for me to buy the DVD. I'm surprised that the number is that high, and expected the percentage to be lower.

Based on this, I'd say that bad presentation would drive a customer like me away rather than poor movie quality. There always seems to be somethng that is fun to watch.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site