Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Poor Theatre Designs Causes Unhappy Patrons

This is topic Poor Theatre Designs Causes Unhappy Patrons 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=005654

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-17-2003, 11:47 PM:

My neck hurts, and I'm still a little queasy, and I blame it on some very poor theatre design.

I saw RETURN OF THE KING tonight. Terrific film, too many endings but most impressive. But, this is not a review of the film. It is a review of the worst theatre design I have ever seen.

It's partly my fault. Normally, I'm very early to screenings as I am very picky about where I sit. But, tonight, I was with some friends, we spent too much time at dinner and we arrived later than I would have liked. We were still about 25 minutes before the start time, but the crowd was early. So, the only seats left for us were in the front row.

The theatre is the ARENA GRAND room #4 in Columbus OH. This is an independent theatre run by a very good quality local exhibitor. Normally a good place to see a film, but not with a sold-out house.

The problem is that this theatre is wide with a very short throw. Screen width is about 50'. The distance from the booth to the screen looks to be slightly less than that. (Too dark to count tiles.)The screen fills the front wall, and is approximately 6' from the floor. The front row is approximately 12' from the screen, so I'm looking up at over a 45 degree angle. So, neck pain throughout the picture. AND, to make it worse, the picture was not very sharp. All of the action in the film made my stomach queasy more than once, and caused one of my friends to find a single seat toward the rear of the theatre.

As bad as these seats were, I'm glad I wasn't forced into one of the end seats, as being that close to the screen and 50' from the other side of the screen would be even MORE uncomfortable.

If there are any theatre designers out there, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't make your patrons suffer just to get a few extra bucks when those big movies come out.

Oh, just to make my evening more enjoyable, there were 2 short projector breakdowns during the screening. Happened about 1/2-way through, and it sure gave my neck a chance to rest.

Seats that close and at that much of an angle should never have been installed. But, I'm sure the designers were asked to cram as many seats into this room as possible to up the gross on these popular movies.

I would like to find the designer of this room and have them sit in the front row for over 3 hours. In fact, they should sit through all 3 parts of the trilogy just to be sure they understand how uncomfortable this is.

Going to the movies should be fun, not a literal pain in the neck.

[ 12-18-2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2003, 08:02 AM:

Those rows are put in for booking reasons with the full knowledge that normally they won't be filled.

I've maintained that if theatre designers follow the guidelines set out in SMPTE's EG-18...the problems you encountered would not have occured.

Steve

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-18-2003, 09:44 AM:

Fairlane/Litchfield Theatres was one company, in the late 1970s and early 1980s at least, to put their front row of seats far enough back from the screen. When I go to the Carmike 8 (an old Fairlane/Litchfield theatre) and am in one of the original auditoriums, if the movie is in flat format, I often sit in the front row so no heads will be sticking up in my view. The first row in those auditoriums is equivalent to the fourth row in most other theatres in the area. Checking my notes, I see that the middle of the front row in the old Litchfield auditoriums puts you 22 feet from the screen. For a flat movie with 26 to 27 foot screen width, that's OK. It's a bit close for scope movies with a screen width of 34 to 36 feet in tose auditoriums, though.

In all other theatres, I couldn't imagine sitting in the front row. In all of the old Cobb theatres in my area that Regal has retrofitted by adding stadium seating, the entire non-stadium front section is very low and close to the screen. The back row of that section is really the only usable section, although people do sit down there often (usually kids and teens).

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-18-2003, 09:57 AM:

I feel sorry for the people in my sold out shows for LOTR, The ones that have to sit up front are about 15 feet from the screen. I couldn't imagine sitting that close to a scope film.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-18-2003, 11:51 AM:

In our smallest houses (ex-GCC) the front row is about SEVEN feet from the screen. In fact, as high as the screen is off the ground in these auditoriums, the first three rows are unusable.

I also don't understand the side rows in the large theaters. The side rows should end four rows prior to the end of the center rows. If you end up in the front row against the wall, you'll be staring at the masking the whole time and leaning over to see a flat movie!!

According to the building log, the largest theater held 420, then 403, then 398, and is currently at 394. There's indication (via holes in the floor) that there were seats right in front of the entry doors (so you get a flood of hallway light on you whenever someone enters or leavs) and seats as close as THREE FEET from the screen!! I bet they realized after a few shows that it was rediculous.

=TMP=

Posted by Dean Craig (Member # 2085) on 12-18-2003, 12:58 PM:

Does any body have a good design of a twin theatre that would fit on a lot about 200x100 feet, or know of good web sites with designs?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2003, 12:58 PM:

Standard SMPTE 196M specifies a preferred viewing distance of 3 picture heights, +/- 1 picture height from the screen for review rooms. In other words, for a 20 x 48 foot "scope" image, the best seats would be between 40 and 80 feet from the screen. A good 35mm print supports viewing distances closer than this, but I would NOT want to sit closer than 1 screen height (20 feet in this example) for the reasons mentioned.

My personal preference for seating is 2 screen heights from the screen on the centerline of the theatre, or 40 feet in this example.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-18-2003, 01:50 PM:

It doesn't just happen in movie theaters. It happens in stages too!

We just remodeled our old "Little Theater". Here's a picture in the midst of the remodel.

(Sorry 'bout the quality. I didn't take the photo.)

There used to be only 180 seats in this auditorium. Now there are 250! That's even after I got them to take out 5 seats for handicaps! The first row of seats is only about 4 feet from the front of the stage. You can put your feet on the stage apron wall when you're sitting in those seats.

The deck of the stage is 4 feet high. When sitting in the front row you can't even see all the way to the back of the stage. The aisles were narrowed from their old config. There's one more seat on the end of each row than there used to be. Now, people sitting in the end seats can see past the legs and into the wings. (Bad form for stages.) There were two more rows added to the back of the house as well. The back aisle is narrowed by about half of what it used to be. When we want to have a follow spot operator for this stage we USED to be able put in a wooden platform and put the spot on that. Now there is no room unless you block an egress aisle. (A BIG no-no!)

I told the boss on several different occasions, "No, you don't want to put this many seats in this house." But he insisted that ne "needed" 250 seats or more. I said to him again, "You THINK you want this many seats but you REALLY don't want to do this!"

For the side seats, we can just buy new legs (curtains) to mask the wings better. For the back rows, we'll just have to figure something else out... probably put the follow spot in the control booth. The front row is an abomination! Nobody shoud ever be forced to sit that close!

I tried to tell the boss to leave out the front row of seats but he wouldn't do it. We would have lost only 16 seats from the house but he HAD to have 250 seats. We're already getting complaints but it's too late now.

It's the same old sotry wherever you go!

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-18-2003, 02:26 PM:

John,

Why was EG-18-1994 withdrawn? Is a new one in the works?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2003, 02:35 PM:

While the original EG18 was very good, there have been some new trends that need to be covered, and some of the guidelines have been misinterpreted or misunderstood. A new one is in the works. The SMPTE Projection Technology (P3) Committee is looking for theatre architects and engineers who are professionally and directly involved in theatre design to participate in drafting a new Engineering Guideline, using much of the good work in EG18 as a starting point. Contact the P3 Chairman Pat Moore, or Mark Hyman at SMPTE headquarters:

http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2003, 04:01 PM:

We saw the David Copperfield stage show at the Alberta Bair Theatre in Billings, Montana. This is normally a great venue, great sound and all. For this show, we were happy to get front row seats...but when the show started, we couldn't hear a SINGLE WORD that Copperfield said. All we heard was echoes. The sound system is apparently "aimed" further back, or whatever. We were royally pissed.

When we last remodeled my theatre (2002) we did away with the side seats, widened the aisles and moved them to the wall. While the very front rows are still too close for my personal taste, the kids (and some adults) love it there and would probably be pissed if the front rows were farther away from the screen.

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 12-18-2003, 06:11 PM:

I'm surprised that some exhibitors haven't had damages claims for neck strain in some multiplexes. Many auditoriums over here require patrons' heads to be tilted steeply upward if they are sitting in any of several rows at the front.

Another problem is the "biggest is best" approach to screen size. This results in the practice of maintaining the same width for scope and wide screen, and dropping the top masking. Whilst a 40 foot wall to wall screen may be acceptable for scope, the result is ubearable for 1:1.85. The image lacks definition unless you are at least half way back in many of the auditoriums.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-18-2003, 06:49 PM:

quote:
Another problem is the "biggest is best" approach to screen size. This results in the practice of maintaining the same width for scope and wide screen, and dropping the top masking.

This combined with steep stadium seating gives the interesting effect of looking down on the picture in smaller houses

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-18-2003, 07:56 PM:

i don't object to having seats go all the way down to the screen, but you should never sell so many tickets that people are required to sit there. it's just an option for those who want to. we have one guy, nearsighted as all hell, who only goes to our upstairs houses where he can sit a few feet away from the screen. different strokes. our official seating capacities are somewhat smaller than the actual number of seats, and even then i can't recall ever selling down to 0.

carl

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-18-2003, 11:38 PM:

Mark if you were stupid enough to take those front seats instead of waiting for a different show, then you deserve what you get. Its not like it was the only theatre showing the picture or the only scheduled show. I would wager that LOTR3 will be on some screen somewhere in your area for at least the next three months. If for some reason you simply could not wait then you have no gounds for complaint.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-18-2003, 11:41 PM:

if one purchases a ticket where no reserve seating is involved there is no guarentee that the front row for a specified perfomance isn;'t where you end up so the SMPTE standard shoudl be "legalay enforced" for where a general admision seat is sold [Frown]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-18-2003, 11:56 PM:

This isn't new; there are many stories of big theatres after talkies covering/filling in the orchestra pit to put in a few more rows down front. The first which comes to mind is Loew's 175th.

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 12-19-2003, 07:58 AM:

quote:
If you were stupid enough to take those front seats instead of waiting for a different show, then you deserve what you get

The problem is, viewing from the front rows in some theatres is perfectly ok, whilst from others, it may represent a nightmare. As has been stated, it depends upon the screen height to viewing distance ratio. How can you expect the audience to know at the time of ticket purchase, what this ratio is and whether the auditorium complies?

This is a consumer issue. In some countries, consumer law protects customers against paying money for goods and services which are "not marketable". It would take a test case in the courts but generally, products and services here, are deemed not to be so, if they don't meet recognized standards.

If a shop sells a loaf of bread , and it transpires it is stale, then they have committed a breech of the Sale of Goods Act. In this case, the applied standard is the period elapsed between when the bread was made, and sold. If the shop owner were to suggest in his defense, that the customer "was stupid to accept the bread instead of waiting for new stocks", the judge would not be impressed. This is not a valid excuse for, as in the case of the poor seating, it assumes knowledge on the part of the customer, which he or she cannot reasonably be expected to have.

Unfortunately, in some instances in the film industry, those who dictate the screen size relative to seating distances, lack technical knowlege. It's really time that certain sections of the industry cleaned up their act.

There is a history of regulatory control being born from a failure to apply appropriate standards. I'm sure the industry doesn't want to see that happen. Particularly as they screamed for years when projectionist licensing once prevented them from employing unskilled labour in projection rooms.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-19-2003, 09:26 AM:

quote:
Mark if you were stupid enough to take those front seats instead of waiting for a different show, then you deserve what you get.

Mark stated that he was with some friends. I've been to many showings I wouldn't have gone to in the past because I was with friends and they chose a movie at a certain time (different theatre and time than I would have chosen by myself). Doing things with friends sometimes overrides other preferences. I think "stupid" is a bit harsh. I had to sit in the second row of ID4 (very close 2nd row about 12 to 15 feet from a 40 foot screen, at the far right side of the screen -- in fact, we were not in front of the screen until the masking widened for scope) when it came out because I was with friends and that's the only place we could grab seats, but I don't consider myself stupid for choosing to watch this movie there with my best friends at the time.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-19-2003, 02:40 PM:

Jonathan Crist said,

quote:
Mark if you were stupid enough to take those front seats instead of waiting for a different show, then you deserve what you get. Its not like it was the only theatre showing the picture or the only scheduled show. I would wager that LOTR3 will be on some screen somewhere in your area for at least the next three months. If for some reason you simply could not wait then you have no gounds for complaint.

Had I been alone, or just with my wife, I would not have stayed. But, I was with friends who I see only rarely, and that was more important to me than where I sat. I normally arrive very early or attend only matinees where I can get the seat of my choice. Wait for another show? It was already 8:20 on a weeknight. Next show at 11:30 and wife leaves for her job as an elementary school principal at 7:00 AM? I don't think so. Also, there is a certain excitement to going on the opening night.

I don't believe any business should harm its patrons. Check the standards and recommendations, and they say 35 vertical degrees is the MAXIMUM angle of comfort. This theatre was almost 60 degrees. I should not have to literally suffer as a result of poor design. I'm sure this was not the intention of the theatre architect, as they were doing their job to cram as many seats into a room with a lot of problems.

BTW, this is a THX approved theatre. THX standards I have read recognize the 35 degree limit, but do not mandate it.

I will formally complain about this, but in writing to the managing director, a gentleman I know and respect. He needs to know about this as I live in a very competitive film market (AMC, MARCUS, REGAL, CINEMARK and some new competition coming soon), and customers can easily go to other places. Someone ending up in those seats in likely never to return.

Actually, though, I did have a good time. I enjoyed being with my friends, and I enjoyed to movie. And I don't consider that to be stupid.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-19-2003, 06:23 PM:

There is nothing stopping them from putting in these seats and there is nothing in the THX design specs stopping those rows being present
In most cases they are there for the house allowance and rarely used
I guess if one wants better seats get there early

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-19-2003, 08:08 PM:

Gordon said:

quote:
I guess if one wants better seats get there early

Right, Gordon...you are absolutely right. OR, stay home and wait for the DVD. I seem to be waiting on the DVD more and more often, too.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-19-2003, 09:24 PM:

I remember when Cinema 5 in Mount Vernon was built. In No.2 auditorium the front row of seats was about 8 feet from the screen. Supposedly, it was done for a seat count.

When the new owners took over, that was one of the first things they did....ripped them out. I enjoyed that. I lead the crew that ripped them out. As soon as a new load of Irwin Citations and rockers arrived, we re-seated the entire auditorium. More leg room and much less seats. The customers loved it. That was the first re-seating jobs I ever ramroded. It turned out beautiful!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-19-2003, 09:36 PM:

Steve and Gordon are right on target about theatre design/seating. [thumbsup]

As John P. said, the best place is 2-screen-heights back... For me, the more close-up seats there are, the more that are availalbe in the "good" seat area cuz of the people that choose the bad ones! [Big Grin]

>>> Phil

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-20-2003, 07:56 AM:

Mark said "Right, Gordon...you are absolutely right. OR, stay home and wait for the DVD"
It is unrealistic to expect a theatre owner to pay for wasted space that 98% the time is unoccupied
HVAC costs are based on room volume
Rent is by the sq foot
Seat Allowance is based on number of seats
The figures from Nato show that on average NorthAmerican theatres have less than a 30% occupancy rate per year
So those seats actually make or break the profitablility of many complexs
rant end enjoy the dvd

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-20-2003, 01:30 PM:

Gordon,

My writing clarity sure has been slipping lately. I wasn't being sarcastic. I do agree with you, and I sympathize with the exhibitors. I haven't stopped going to film, and I will still go, and yes, I'll go to the Arena Grand. And I'll encourage others to go there.

I do think I need to alert the management. I heard comments from people sitting behind me that they would never come back because of this unpleasant experience.

One thing the management COULD have done at no cost would be to ask the audience to move to the center. There were numerous single seats. I've been to many screenings where this was done. Most people understand and will cooperate. My group would have easily been able to split up into groups of 2-3.