Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is NOT good enough...

This is topic What is NOT good enough... 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=005697

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 12-30-2003, 07:09 AM:

I am, of course, responding to the thread, 'What is good enough?' but felt compelled to start a fresh thread due to an alarming couple of posts I just came across on the usenet group, 'aus.dvd'.

Here is the post, verbatim:

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

'Went last night to the Return Of The King at Noosa Cinema. Putting aside the masses of people sms-ing, chewing, munching, snoring and talking through the film.The bloody sound was all over the place. Centre channel was so low that at soft dialogue scenes I could hardly hear and the right channel was soooo loud I thought I was being attacked by sea gulls and crickets! And the
focus shesh! the projectionist must be blind! This is not my first bad experience- last time I had to go to the box office to ask them to focus the film and balance the sound and this was after the film had started......Well my spleen feels better now....God I am glad I have a home cinema!!!!!!'

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

A couple of posts down the thread, the following response came:

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

'Yeah if dvd's were released around the time of the theatrical release theaters would suffer a huge loss in business, as it is they have a sort of monopoly, I know I would rather watch a movie on dvd at home because of all the reasons you mentioned, my local theater has no competition and the picture and sound quality are terrible, if people had the option of watching
the dvd at home at the same time they would have to clean their act up, as it is they have no reason to offer good quality. The films always seem to be out of focus and the sound in the main theatre cannot be turned up as the speakers go all distorted, I watch matrix revolutions towards the end of its run and there was only about 10 people in the theatre, yet the sound of just 1 chippie bag was enough to drown out the dialogue, the sound is only stereo too. The picture quality at this theatre seems to deteriorate quickly, sometimes I wonder if they have purchased a 2ndhand copy, there are scratches galore.
I think the projectionist wears glasses, maybe this has something to do with the bad focus or maybe it is to blur the scratches on the film, whatever it's bloody terrible.'

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

Keep in mind that these were completely unsolicited comments from a couple of people who, due to one too many poor theatre presentations, now view movie theatres as a burden, an obstacle, something to be endured until they can get their hands on the DVD release of a movie they want to see.

It's more than a little sad when a movie theatre - which should be seen as the ultimate place to experience a movie - becomes reviled by the paying public.

Not to put too fine a point on it - if you are running a theatre, and you think the public won't notice substandard presentation, you are ultimately mistaken and in the end it will cost you and the industry as a whole very dearly.

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-30-2003, 08:54 AM:

Exactly why the Romance has to be put back into movie theatres. People are going to need a reason to come. They need a connection to the whole event including in focus pictures, balanced sound, real SR, quality speakers, steady projectors... etc. etc. etc.

What those people certainly isn't good enough.

Maybe it's the dreaded utopian view of things, but good enough to me will ALWAYS be, a constant effort to be good enough with the goal set to always be better than what we think good enough is. If you buy a theatre you have to start with what you have. People on this board who have done that have mentioned that they have been doing just what they should. They take steps to be better all the time.

It's the standing still that to me just isn't good enough.

Previous sentance, while redundant, was added to specifically state what I feel isn't good enough lest I should be accused of avoiding the initial question again.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-30-2003, 09:50 AM:

One of the reasons I haven't yet seen Return of the King is everyone I've talked to has mentioned audio dropouts (digital to analog or total loss of audio) every few seconds near the end, plus I just no longer have the desire to watch a movie of this type in a crowded room full of seat kickers and noise makers. Comedies are better with a crowd, but serious movies are not. I'll end up watching Return of the King on a weeknight somewhere after the crowds die down.

I'm going to the theatre about half as frequently as I did in 1998. Movies need to get better (better writing instead of putting all the money into special effects and paying big-name actors). I'm sick of seeing the same actors/actresses over and over in movies too.

If I had my choice of watching ROTK on DVD rather than seeing it in the theatre, I believe that I, and most of my friends, would prefer to watch the movie on my big screen TV. The sound is often better, there are no "projection problems", and the movie is so long that if people need a bathroom break, we can pause it and nobody misses anything.

I don't think "romance" will ever return to the movie theatre. The smallest theatres in my area have 8 screens, and it gives the atmosphere of "mass production" rather than "romance", especially at the busiest theatres with 10, 12, and 18 screens. In the multiplexes, there are usually just two, or at most three, different styles of auditoriums. Once you get in an auditorium, you can forget which one you're in because so many of them look the same. If I built a multiplex, I'd want the auditoriums to be decorated differently, to give each one a "personality" (even the smaller auditoriums). I'd wantsome decorations that people would notice and remember (although not be distracting while the movie is playing).

Commercials should not be shown in theatres. That's a big problem happening now, since Regal started playing 10 or more commercials before previews, and Carmike is now doing it too. That destroys part of the atmosphere and makes the theatre one step closer to a TV experience.

I doubt we can ever go back to "romance" in theatres. The trouble with theatres now is the "customers" of the theatres are not the people coming to see the movies. It's the studios and the advertisers. If more than half the income for a theatre is not coming from ticket sales, then the theatre is not really in business to show movies. It's true that people coming in are rquired for income, but as long as enough are, their wants and needs are secondary.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-30-2003, 10:04 AM:

quote:
I just no longer have the desire to watch a movie of this type in a crowded room full of seat kickers and noise makers.

Totally agree!

I can stand a sub par presentation but I cant stand people kicking my seat, laughing, talking, and whatever else they may do.

After screening alone on Thursday nights, you kinda get spoiled.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-30-2003, 01:32 PM:

Personally, I prefer to see a movie with a crowd of people, even dramas. But I agree that movie theaters are committing suicide by not presenting "film done right." But this is typical of most large businesses in the U.S. today who only look at the next quarter's stock price and not the long term. Hasn't anyone learned anything from the mistakes the record industry has made?

But I guess the move owners figure that if the theater business becomes not viable, they can shell the building and put another big-box retailer in there.

And while I'd love for movie palaces to make a return, I can live with the multiplex as long as the picture and sound quality is good. While home theater can also provide a great experience, I have NEVER seen a home theater in a reasonable price range that provided an experience as good as a semi-decent theater. Black levels alone make home viewing on video inferior. And unless you have an extremely large house or live in a loft, most rooms are not set properly for home theater. For example, TVs are frequently placed on the long wall with the couch opposite and against the wall, so that the surrounds are closer to one's head than the screen speakers.

In NYC, I think many of our multiplexes, such as the Loews Lincoln Square, are a bit more upscale than your typical mall multiplex and the presentation quality is usually pretty good. And we still have a few single theaters, such as the Ziegfeld (1150 seats) and the Loews Astor Plaza (about 1500 seats), which also generally have excellent presentation.

As far as movie audiences are concerned, this is a reflection of the sad state of society where people think they can do absolutely anything they want because they've paid a few bucks to see a movie.

I went to see Bad Santa a few nights back and was shocked at the number of very young kids in the audience for this R-rated flick. I know it's legal for the kids to be there with their parents, but are their parents insane? One kid kept saying through the most vulgar parts of the film, "I think we should change the channel, Daddy."

Then a phone started squawking - it was one of those phones that are always on to a specified number. After about ten seconds of it, I finally screamed out, "shut the phone off, idiot!" The guy screamed out, "it's just a kid - give him a break." Aside from the issue of why a 10 year old needed such a phone, especially when accompanied by his parents, why didn't the parent have the kid shut the phone off before the film? When the movie was over, the guy was scanning the audience, I think in an attempt to locate who might have screamed at him. I just quietly walked out -- I wasn't looking to get into a physical fight with anyone.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 2038) on 12-30-2003, 02:00 PM:

I agree with all of the posts. Maybe I'm spoiled, working an old single screen house right out of the 1920s. We go overboard sometimes making the show a good one, as much as we can at least.

Our first multi around here was a "pillbox twin" from 1972. If it didn't have to be built to code, like using concrete block walls, they would have built it from cardboard. Everything was low-end. Including the presentations. There was no screen masking and since the four machines were in the middle of the booth, straddling the center wall, the pictures were keystoned sideways. The sound system was fair but the auditorium walls had some kind of cheap fabric huge on the concrete block walls, so you can imagine how great the audio was. Blech.

Apparently the theatre owners (or designers) felt that patrons would be content to sit in pillboxes. When the bigger multis were built they were just as cheap, in my opinion at least.

There's a big mall multi near me that must have been designed by someone who never went to see a movie. The lobby (if you can call it that) is a big bright noisy atrium sort of thing that has all the charm of an airport terminal.

Like an above post pointed out, a little decorating works wonders. Make the auditoriums different. Even if your patrons refer to #4 as The Green Room (or whatever), you are ahead of the others.

My mother's comments about this place are: TOO DAMN LOUD! You can hear the movies in the adjoining auditoriums. The trailers are even MORE too loud than the feature. You can't see the exit signs from the stadium seats. Too many commercials. Too many trailers. Focus. Framing. Bad employee attitude. She has never had a good experience there and refuses to return. Not a good way to make friends, read customers.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-30-2003, 03:10 PM:

Evans - no offense, but the two companies you mentioned are the main reasons why people want to stay at home and watch DVDs (here in the USA, anyways) Carmike and Regal. When I state this -I do not want to include every theatre these companies run. However I would say that my statement would include ALMOST every location.

Micro-managing mega and multi-plexes is where the 'romance' is lost. Getting bodies in the door to pay for tickets and concessions - that is their main goal.

I personally run a 14 screen. You can ask any of my thousands of weekly customers why they come to my theatre. It is because I have a dedicated staff who cares about the 'romance' of the cinema.

Sorry for the dig into the 'other guys' - but I am sure 9 out of 10 people would agree with me.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-30-2003, 04:15 PM:

Right on! Gary and Dennis.

What this business needs is more "showmanship" to make the "theatre experience" something different than just putting a bigger picture on an bigger screen.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-30-2003, 05:16 PM:

quote:
I just no longer have the desire to watch a movie of this type in a crowded room full of seat kickers and noise makers. Comedies are better with a crowd, but serious movies are not. I'll end up watching Return of the King on a weeknight somewhere after the crowds die down.

I am going to see it in the first show on January 1st, guess why...
Although I really enjoy seeing films with an audience (especially good comedies!), watching blockbusters like LotR is quite painful sometimes because deep inhale PEOPLE CANNOT KEEP THEIR F***ING MOUTH SHUT !

No objections against a remark or two, but some people are so brainwashed by TV and DVD watching that they think everybody enjoys their constant commentary on the film. Sure, you can ask them to stop it when they are near you, but have more than five or six in the auditorium and it gets hopeless. Most of all I enjoy parents who think that their kids have a right to constantly chatter or run around the theatre, maybe they take it as a sign of intelligence.

I LOVE seeing films with an audience, especially movies that were made with an audience's reaction in mind, but sometimes it gets hard to enjoy a film with people who (in an open air showing) TURN AROUND during the stargate sequence in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and start discussing their mobile phone's features... [Mad]

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-30-2003, 05:33 PM:

We're all doomed. Time to throw in the towel!! [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2003, 06:45 PM:

Home "Theatre" won't kill the movie business. Everyone knows that home cooking is WAY better than restaurant cooking, yet people flock to restaurants.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-30-2003, 07:10 PM:

I'm all for showmanship but I don't believe that customers are looking for romance. If that is the case then what we're dealing with is prostitution -- and the biz has got that in spades at the moment. [Wink]

The people who wrote those complaints don't want romance. I think they would have accepted the most basic level of showmanship, which they did not get.

I take issue with the notion of crying out for more "romance" across the board because it connotes too many other things that I think are fine and good -- and would perhaps work for certain theatres -- but those things that come to mind are not necessarily "what this business needs."

At best it's vague.

As for the question, that too is vague. There are myriad negative contributing factors that could render an experience "not good enough."

Another forum recently entertained a discussion about house light levels and how theatres in some areas are keeping house lights on because of liability issues with stadium seating. Turns out that chains that own stadium AND raked floor houses are keeping lights on consistently throughout the chain, with no regard for the type of flooring in a given room. That's stupid. That's not good enough.

Theatres that permit noise and conversation are not good enough. Stadium seating is again a recurring factor, because the steps make it more difficult for ushers to patrol. It's impossible to be inconspicuous when doing an "aisle check." When I was with AMC we did them every 20-30 minutes and there was even a log for that. I've never seen an aisle check in a stadium house at any theatre. Let's face it, some customers need to be supervised.

I agree that commercials decrease one's level of enjoyment and personally I would rather not see them but I understand that there is a lot of money at stake and theatres are starving for cash. Some could say that commercials are "not good enough" while others, like myself, can live with them. It's not an absolute.

Sticky floors, smelly auditoria and inadequate (or loud) airconditioning are not good enough.

If you ask some people, they'd say that 2nd run is not good enough.

The topic is wide open.

For those of you who are pushing for bringing back the romance, what exactly do you mean by that? More to the point, what are you doing (that the rest of us aren't) toward that end?

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 12-30-2003, 08:31 PM:

[ 08-28-2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Jennifer Pan ]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-30-2003, 09:47 PM:

How do we keep 'the romance' at my theatre? Well, my definition of 'romance' is the love of going to the movies and not walking in the door at Blockbuster every week (or the competition theatre).

At the Neonopolis 14 we do the following:

We ensure the best presentation in Las Vegas (and we have the best).

We greet every customer with a smile and treat them like gold.

As general manager, I conduct daily inspections of all auditoriums and the facilities, and I teach the members of my staff the importance of patroling auditoriums - constantly.

We have the best prices, the most comfortable seats, and the best sound in Las Vegas (and I challenge anyone on this in town).

When our customers walk out the door, we tell them to have a nice evening.

Our restrooms are clean.

We have regular promotions of films. For example: for months at a time, almost weekly, a customer can walk through my door and see a lobby promotion for a movie. They also can receive a free poster or something (we are always giving something away).
We recently gave away a sword signed by Elijah Wood (for ROTK).

We give people a reason to come through our doors everyday.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 12-31-2003, 01:11 AM:

Jeez Dennis, your place sounds nice. Can I come and play? [Big Grin]

AJG

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 2038) on 12-31-2003, 12:36 PM:

Wow Dennis, you sound like an oldtimer! Good for you! Especially in Vegas. Talk about competition problems!

John H, don't throw in the towel just yet. Maybe some us of can keep this industry alive for a few more weeks. Still interested in restoring the booth at CB in Red Bank?

One thing I didn't see mentioned, and we would have no control over anyway, is the product. I often wonder why some dimbulb producer decided to invest money in some of these offerings we show.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-01-2004, 04:37 PM:

For the most part I believe that the general public either doesn't know a bad presentation when they see it, or they just don't give a damn. They have been so conditioned to accept mediocrity in every thing else that it makes no difference to them. An example of this occurred in my theatre a couple weeks ago. I usually keep a check on the sound monitors and check by going out into the balcony periodically to check in person. That nite on one of the balcony checks there was an extremely loud 120hz hum, it had apparently been masked in the booth by other sounds. No telling how long it had been there. It took a couple additional minutes to locate the faulty ground & cure it. Nobody complained and when the manager offered comp tickets at the end, nobody took any. A few were asked about it and they said it wasn't too bad and only lasted about 10 minutes! This noise drowned out dialogue, truly the hum from hell and nobody complained.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-01-2004, 05:01 PM:

The 'conventional wisdom' is that customers don't know the difference between good and bad presentation and they won't complain. And I agree..to an extent. It does seem strange that in an era when people are willing to complain about anything and everything, no matter how trivial, they don't seem to complain when "film is done wrong."

I've noticed the same thing at live music shows. No one every complains when the sound sucks or when it's so loud, that it's beyond the threshold of pain.

However, while people might not complain or might not seem like they care, on a subconscious level I think they definitely do know the difference. And this translates into attending movies less. They'll never say that the presentation is bad, but they just won't feel like going.

And as home theater gets better and better, people will just stay home. I was in a CompUSA the other day and some really badly dressed, not too intelligent seeming guy was buying an $8,000 HDTV monitor.

Good and proper presentation can never hurt -- it will either make no difference or will help. Bad presentation at least has the possibility of hurting.

As for people not wanting a refund or replacement ticket, I remember seeing ET in a major Manhattan theater when it first ran and there was a 60-cycle hum throughout the presentation. The theater was so crowded that I couldn't get out to complain. When it was over, I found the manager and complained. He turned to another employee and said, "oh..he heard the problem." He offered me a ticket to come back, but I didn't want to see it again..and even if I did, I wouldn't have wanted to see it in that theater.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 01-01-2004, 07:26 PM:

quote:
Good and proper presentation can never hurt -- it will either make no difference or will help. Bad presentation at least has the possibility of hurting.

Nicely put!

True - they often don't complain to the theatre. That's the problem! The theatre thinks they've done a job good and thinks, 'We've had no complaints. Let's carry on the way we have been'.

They do complain to their friends, on usenet (see above) or maybe they just keep it to themselves.

My belief is that everyone can tell the difference. Perhaps they won't pick up the nuances between a reasonable presentation and a slightly better one, but every single person knows the difference between an average presentation and a GREAT one.

I wrote a post a lot earlier about a 70MM presentation of '2001' that received multiple lots of praise from the audience. They felt compelled to tell the floor staff how wonderful they thought the presentation was. Not just the movie...the presentation specifically. The point is that you didn't have to be a buff to notice; it was impossible to miss.

John Wilson received plenty of write in compliments for his 35MM presentations of 'Titanic' as well, so it can be done!

The problem often is that there is no point of reference, and you have to be well trained to know what things should look/sound like to know that things aren't as good as they could be. However, if you had a two-projector changeover setup each loaded with the same reel of a movie, and one had not-so-great brightness and focus and the other one was dead-on, then I'm willing to bet that there wouldn't be a single person alive that a) couldn't tell the difference, and b) would not prefer the better one. It's obvious when there is a reference. However, if your theatre is running optimally, then the audience on some level will know the presentation was good, and would certainly never think that home theatre was better.