This is topic Uptown Theater ditches quality projectionists in search of a crappy presentation 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=006838

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2005, 10:14 PM:
 
You heard right! The famous Uptown Theater, which is somewhere in Maryland I think (I searched for it on the Loews site and it does not seem to exist... oh well no one really cares where it is) is throwing out their full-time operators during the week and replacing them with an incredibly old Christie AW3 platter to be run by managers. This is true, I am not making this up! This is an effort to save money, because Loews is doing extremely poorly financially and really, really needs the cash BAD! Have you seen any of their theaters? If you have, then you know what I mean.

The guy who made the decision to replace the union operators with a platter is an extremely cheap person. I have met him and you can tell by the way he dresses and even looking at his kids that he is really, really, really cheap! So this move does not surprise me. At least the presentation will improve due to the place being platter driven and manager run. No more missing frames on the reel changes. And managers make absolutely fabulous projection operators! Obviously they wouldn't be managers if they didn't have a firm grasp on everything! I mean c'mon, they're managers of a MOVIE THEATER for crying out loud! That may seem like the very bottom of the job chain to you and not at all impressive, but... well... yeah I guess a theater manager and assistant manager is tantamount to being manager of a Burger King. Especially the people this guy hires. Oy! I'm not even sure that they're qualified for minimum wage! But cheaper is better. God I hate people.

But say goodbye to changeovers at the Uptown. Discuss.

Title edited to reflect that the platter is NOT an issue of this thread, that it is the people operating the booth causing the drop in quality, at Steve's request.

[ 01-16-2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 01-08-2005, 11:11 PM:
 
From a Washington-area lover of the Uptown: AAAAAAAARGH!

The theater was (is?) a venue for national premieres and for 70mm shows (I saw 2001 there roadshow in my teens, and WOODSTOCK again ... and again ... and again) - the head projectionist (his name escapes me, I'm sorry) was a consultant to many other venues as well as an authority on all aspects of motion pictures.

The Uptown's deep-curved, banded Cinerama screen was a wonder to behold, stretching floor to ceiling, as the curtains opened (yeah, they still did that - better to keep little kids from messing up the carefully-aligned screen strips).

Oh, well [sigh]. Maybe they'll say things as nice about me when I go entirely to ruin.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-09-2005, 12:19 AM:
 
At least they put in an AW3!

They could've just as easily put in a Super Platter...

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-09-2005, 12:30 AM:
 
How are they going to fit a platter into that booth?

Assuming that all of this is true, Loews should get a big for trying to save a few dollars at the expense of presentation quality in what is one of their best theatres (if not the best).

I assume that this also means the end of 70mm engagements at the Uptown? I first visited the theatre in 1996 to see the reissue of Vertigo, and have since seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and 2001 in 70mm there. All were flawless presentations, with large audiences.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-09-2005, 02:44 AM:
 
..the new generation of theatre operation, once again, destroys what once was: "Pride", and the "Art of Presentation." (the results of GREED!)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-09-2005, 02:54 AM:
 
I've never been to the Uptown, Washington, nor do I know how to operate changeovers but ya know, this still ticks me off! Sure, I'm a youngn' to some folks out there, but I still get sad when I hear that a place that has exceptional presentation may be going away. Loews: What a move.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 01-09-2005, 04:34 AM:
 
Joe Redifer wrote:

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The famous Uptown Theater, which is somewhere in Maryland I think (I searched for it on the Loews site and it does not seem to exist... oh well no one really cares where it is)

---

The Uptown Theater is in Washington, DC proper. Was Maryland over two hundred years ago, though. Knowing the city would've yielded the "Uptown 1" on the Loews site, currently playing Aviator which is actually rather fitting for that big curved screen.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2005, 05:22 AM:
 
Eh, I should have just said that it was somewhere in the 13 Colonies.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-09-2005, 05:23 AM:
 
If most of what they do is show the same film over and over again, then of course platters per se won't necessarily hurt presentation quality - if they're well maintained, operated in a reasonably clean air environment and have a cleaning device in the film path, they might even be a better bet than constantly rewinding 2k reels at high speeds. But I really don't like the sound of 'really old' and 'operated by managers'.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-09-2005, 05:45 AM:
 
Guttag works that Theatre!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-09-2005, 06:10 AM:
 
That of course is the issue -- that theatre owners think that by installing a platter means that they can fire projectionists and substitute minimum wage paid orangutans to run them. That pretty much precludes the quality of presentation that the theatre seems to be noted for. And to let these managers loose on 70mm? They've got to be kidding. Although they did this at the Loew's Astor Plaza in NYC -- the projectionist came in on Fridays and worked the weekend. During the rest of the week it was some a high school kind sitting OUTSIDE the booth in his letter jacket, just in case "the big film jumped," as he put it to me. He was "attending" the 70mm presentation of 2001. They were the FIRST theatre to get one of the two new prints WB struck for a special 2001 rerelease which they finally got around to releasing in December 2002, but who's counting, and by the end of the Astor Plaza's 2 week run (with a projectionist in the booth 3 days of the week and the HS kid sitting outside the other FIVE) they managed to severly damage a new $20,000 print. It's not the equipement, it's who's HAVING AT IT!
 

---

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 01-09-2005, 06:47 AM:
 
I wonder if the concessionists will handle the build-up then.

Maybe while they are at it they can get the box cashiers to change out a few xenon bulbs.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2005, 06:57 AM:
 
I would presume managers are going to be projectionists during the weekdays and they will keep the real projectionists (those who are willing to stay after being so insulted, that is) for the buildup, weekend shifts and special rentals.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-09-2005, 11:47 AM:
 
Brad,
Its hard to say what they will really do. I can relate to what they do out here and that is that they have fairly capable assistant managers that also run the booths and there are really no problems what so ever at the locations we service for them. But these are also long time industry people with many years of experience that run them. I'm sure that other areas are not so lucky!

BTW: With a platter in that booth there will not be room for a second machine at all. I'd say good bye to any important premiere type of stuff from happening there. It really is disgusting. Cineplex did the same thing to McClurg Court in Chicago.... ran it into the ground only to be completely gone today.......

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-09-2005, 12:40 PM:
 
A couple of corrections....

The Uptown is in Washington, DC...not in Maryland (anymore) and as such, not part of the colonies. None of the stripes on the flag represent DC and you won't find any Senators with voting power in congress representing DC....

There is no platter installed at the Uptown, as of yet. In all liklihood there will be a used scratch and dent AW3 installed in a week or two.

Both projectors are to remain.

Floor staff are prohibited from working the booth by contract, only managers.

They (LCE) have implimented their M/O policy starting this past Monday, in violation of the contract and charges have been filed.

On their first day, they cancelled 33% of their shows due to damaging equipment. This should be noted since the Uptown has never had to issue refunds/readmits in such a manor except due to power failure (not really equipment or operator related)

They have also succeeded in dmaging shutters in both projectors and scratching the print.

The policy is not so much cost cutting though it is in there somehwere, it is a systematic policy of eliminating union operators. Mind you, the Uptown does not pay that great as union gigs go. It is $12/hour, which is very low for this area in similar type venues or screening rooms. It seems to all come from one person within LCE that just has a thing against operators.

Hey Leo, have you EVER seen a show at the Uptown? NOBODY has as clean a show as we do in the area or that I've seen. The gates/film path are cleaned each reel. The film is cleaned each show (and FilmGuarded). The take up magazine is closed door and the film is stored in closed bins. Extra junk leader and tails are added so the film that is shown is never handled by humans beyond inspection. There are no tell-tale dirt near changeovers or cinch marks. So don't you DARE put a good-light on what is happening at the Uptown unless you have the facts to back it up...I highly doubt you've seen our show to know what improvements, if any, could be had.

[ 01-10-2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]
 

---

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 01-09-2005, 01:38 PM:
 

quote:

---

... it is a systematic policy of eliminating union operators. Mind you, the Uptown does not pay that great as union gigs go. It seems to all come from one person within LCE that just has a thing against operators.

---

Forgive me, a vague political reference if you will...all the said this nation needed to and " " and yet big corporations (like LCE) get a free pass. Working people and small businessmen/women have no rights or protections!

[ 01-09-2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-09-2005, 01:58 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Both projectors are to remain.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

Then we'll have film exposed to the environment for 20 or more feet on its way to the projector. Kiss goodbye to flawless presentation.

---

Bullshit, Rick. The film flying through the air does not damage the presentation in any way. If you don't see how stupid a comment this is, get your butt down here and I'll show you some theaters that run every show with 100-150 feet traveling in the air.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-09-2005, 06:50 PM:
 
OK Brad. I remember film picking up lots of dust in some of the older theatres. Maybe with filmguard and the newer handling technologies that is no longer so. What I was trying to say is that in MY opinion what they are doing at the Uptown sucks. Plain & Simple.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2005, 07:08 PM:
 
Rick, you stated it as a fact, hence my opposition to your statement. That couldn't be farther from the truth. If film traveling through air for a matter of seconds (or even a minute) was such a bad thing, we would all be covered in dust just walking around the booth all night. It's a stupid and incorrect theory, and one I'm sick of hearing. Heck, I run delayed interlocks with a couple of THOUSAND feet flying around in the air repeatedly and yet the print is shipped back at the end of the run in lab pristine condition. Film flying through the air does not harm it.

Steve and the Uptown operators do all the things good changeover operators need to do to be able to run a show over and over and be able to compete with the presentation possible from a properly operated platter. They add extra head and tail leader, and human hands never touch even the lab leaders when threading. I only know of a couple of other reel to reel houses that do this, and even though I haven't seen the Uptown's presentation personally, knowing the procedures that are followed in that booth, I *know* without going there that their print condition is just about as flawless as it can get. It really is ashamed to see the managers come into the booth when the track record is so perfect over the years. I must agree though with Leo that platter or not, if they kept the projectionists that are currently there, they could put on every bit as good of a show with reels or platter. It's the people running the machines that will ultimately determine the presentation quality. Fortunately more people are starting to wake up from their comas and realize this.

Platter vs. reels is however not the point of this thread. The issue here is Loews knowingly and intentionally lowering their presentation standards just to save a couple of bucks.

For the record, there was a brief period of time when GCC had the managers at Northpark run the booth on the weekdays to try and save on payroll. This ultimately got thrown out because it was keeping the managers from doing their job on the floor and the real projectionists (Ron, Jim and myself) went back to running full time. However in that stretch of time, not one print was damaged in the slightest way. This was because even though we were union, we insisted on personally training the managers, rather than letting them operate the booth after going through the "GCC projectionist training program" offered at the Collin Creek, which did not even have the same kind of equipment. (In fact, we didn't even want them to attend that "training course" because we didn't want to have to UN-DO all of the bad habits that were taught there.) I doubt that will happen at the Uptown. The managers there will probably get stuck with some dipwad corporate trainer who will concentrate on "the basics" and not offer any specific training on the runnings of that particular booth. Then there will probably be tidy little "checklists" and "how to start a movie" guides posted around the booth as well as useless "troubleshooting guides". Since the Uptown is an older booth, they will probably also label everything with masking tape and a Sharpie marker in an attempt to idiot-proof the place. (They always do, yet it never works.) As a result, they will in all probability see film getting damaged every week and the theater will no longer be "the" place to see a film in that area. Sooner or later, that decline in presentation at the Uptown will be the death of it because people will be able to get a better presentation on video at home. Very sad.

How do these bonehead corporate people actually get their jobs? How stupid do you have to be to not realize that people come to see the MOVIE, not the clean floors or smiling usher or purchase overpriced concession items! Nothing else in the building is as important as it's presentation.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-09-2005, 07:22 PM:
 
Rick--were you the guy from DC who stopped by the booth when I was working in Williamsburg 6-7 years ago? If so, hi!

Yeah, GCC/AMC did the same sort of thing around here--they went from having operators full-time to 40 hours per week, then 32, 36, or 38 (usually Wednesday night, Thrusday night, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday afternoon, depending on the theatre), and then to zero. This worked better at some theatres than others. At one where I often filled in (a 5-plex), print damage from managers was common, and it was not unusual to find equipment in various states of disrepair. At two other theatres (a 10-plex and a 16-plex), it wasn't so bad, and prints generally stayed in decent shape, with occasional exceptions.

I know of exactly one theatre (a 6-plex) where the combination part-time projectionist/part-time manager-operator scheme actually works really well, and that's because the theatre has a manager who has been there since the place opened in 1998 and who cares about film and proper presentation. Sadly, this situation is not common.

Is Loews switching to manager-operator in all of its theatres? I just saw a pretty crappy presentation at the Boston Common theatre, which I thought was a full-time union house (at least it was when it opened in 2001). Is this no longer the case?
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-09-2005, 07:36 PM:
 
Thanks Brad. I retract my earlier statement.

What I am in opposition to is what appears to be this tendency to view the craft of projection as something not to important, and the projectionist as someone expendable. I recall being in a theatre that had a pronounced travel ghost and being told by management that it was in the print. Oddly, according to him, I was the only one to complain. I provided a free shutter adjustment and Bingo, the "print" was fixed.

I enjoy your web site and applaud you for your effort in keeping it maintained. You have given all of us a sounding board and allowed us to make contacts we may never have made.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-09-2005, 08:18 PM:
 
I definately agree Brad!! What you run doesn't matter much but the cleanliness of the booth does. I seriously doubt that Cineplex will keep a spotless booth and the Uptown is an old dusty theatre on top of that. Sending the operators out will definately mean a lowering of what was impeccable presentation quality in this theatre.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-09-2005, 08:46 PM:
 
Leo

I still take great offense to your statements.

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Mark & Steve: I wasn't accusing this theatre of bad presentation, only saying that 'platters won't necessarily hurt presentation quality'.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Good film handling techniques will mean good presentation anywhere, using any equipment, whether with two projectors or one and a platter.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

My point was that if what a theatre does is to show the same film, four times a day, seven days a week, then a platter might be a better idea than changeovers

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

But if you're showing the same programme repeatedly, is rewinding 2K reels REALLY any film-friendlier than a platter film path, however carefully it's done?

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I was simply trying to suggest, in response to Joe's post which started the thread, that platters in themselves aren't necessarily the kiss of death.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

If film traveling through air for a matter of seconds (or even a minute) was such a bad thing, we would all be covered in dust just walking around the booth all night.

---

Actually Brad, you are indeed collecting dust and dirt just by walking through the booth all night...more likely your clothing is a bit more. The film like everything else will attract the dirt. There are many factors involved too...how clean is the environment, humidity, HVAC and duct locations...etc. In older booths, I've found keeping up with dirt to be a bit tougher than in newer ones. Since the Uptown was built in the Nitrate days, we have both building HVAC and direct, non-filtered outside "fresh air" The idea being that in the event of a fire, the booth would seal up and vent directly to the outside and be fed directly from the outside. It is a cement bunker with metal fire doors (at least two to any customer area, including under the balcony).

For those that know the booth, placing the platter anywhere but in the booth would compromise the fire rating on the booth and expose those in the balcony directly, only plaster to the lobby to a booth fire. While the Nitrate issue could certainly be challenged existing fire code still requires that the booth, which contains flammible products and equipment to seal up...compromising the booth wall (which is probably load bearing for the balcony) or door would violate that.

Now as to this platter vs reel debate...Brad and I have hashed it to death so those that have their opinions please search out and read them, neither of us are going to bend on this. I also don't intend to get into a pissing match with Leo here...if you want to discuss the merits further...take it to another thread or email

This is about the Uptown, what LCE is doing has nothing to do with improving anything...they have even acknowleged that they will be lowering the quality (in a bargaining meeting). The Uptown is just 1 screen on a spreadsheet to them and it wasn't conforming to their multiplex plan. They want it to perform like any other screen within a 20-plex. Nevermind that we did over 600 on just the 8:00 show of Aviator this Saturday.

Steve

[ 01-10-2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-09-2005, 09:28 PM:
 
It's a simple matter of common sense that, all things being equal, film exposed to open air for 20 feet is going to pick up dust at a rate 10 times film exposed to open air for 2 feet. Which is not to say that the former case is going to present a 10-times dirtier film to the public since there is FG & cleaning and other techniques to keep everything pristine. There is always dust in the air--even a microelectronics "clean" room has some. So certainly the amount of time something is exposed is pretty much going to equate with the amount that falls on it. Otherwise you're contravening the laws of physics. If cleaning techniques keep the film pristine great.

What would be the result of either projection technique with no cleaning employed?
 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 01-09-2005, 10:00 PM:
 
SHAME ON YOU, Brad Miller ... SHAME ON YOU, Joe Redifer!

Nitpicking about minor details like needle-sharp focus and a little dust on a print - REAL Americans have learned to ignore such little things!

Justin West put it plainly, above: "all the said this nation needed to and " " and yet big corporations (like LCE) get a free pass."

Don't you boys get it? If the Uptown remains a changeover house, and the !

[ 01-09-2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-09-2005, 10:14 PM:
 

quote:

---

Don't you boys get it? If the Uptown remains a changeover house, and the !

---

My My MY, Wayne... isn't THAT an intelligent comment? What a you seem to be.

PULEEZE take your , to another website for such posts.

[Moderated to protect the virgin ears of the Film-Tech community, even though the moderator fully agrees with this post.]

[ 01-09-2005, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 01-10-2005, 12:46 AM:
 
Steve,
Im the Business rep for IATSE in Seattle. Cineplex did it to us two years ago and I believe in Boston as well. I met you at the 2002 and 2004 film tech drink at Showest. I very much wanted to see the Uptown someday. Im heartbroken for you, our craft, and that lovely movie theatre. Actully furious is more the word for it. As Brad said the only thing that can keep this business alive is presentation. With this forum(thank you Brad!) I have learned how many people out there are dedicated to putting on a good show and keeping there prints and equipment in the best shape that they can. Loews Shittyplex seems hell bent on destroying this business. We have a similar situation here in Seattle with the Cinerama. We have an operator in there 32 hours a week. When they run Cinerama, 70mm, and festivals AMC(who run it for Paul Allen) we get full hours. I hope with our contract coming up they wont try to change that any further.
If there is anything I can do to help, feel free to call me. Its in the IATSE bulletin. If you would like to email and want any of the phone numbers I can be reached thats fine. You might want to talk to Carl Belfor with the LA local and see what there status is with Cineplex. My email is . Good luck and pleaase keep us posted.

[ 01-10-2005, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 01-10-2005, 01:52 AM:
 




I've worked a lot of Loews theatres in the area, including the Uptown. Many of those were shared booths with part time projection. All of the "shared" booths had problems.

One issue is that managers in this area often leave "problems" for the operators to fix. If they switch prints, requiring a lens and masking change, they take the position that it's the projectionist's job to deal with lenses and masking. So a movie may run in the wrong format for a couple days until the projectionist is back in the booth. I've seen this happen.

Also, the majority of Loews manager or usher operators don't know how to thread in frame and don't care. They never turn the intermittent over. At the LCE 18-plex I used to work at, the managers started striking the lamps and running the first ad for a few seconds to see if it was in frame. And sometimes they had to rethread because the intermittent was at the end of its travel. So the lamp might get struck three times for each show (which would start partway through the first ad). And when I started my shifts I'd find the intermittents cranked.

Many Loews man-ops I've dealt with also can't be bothered to wait 10 minutes for the lamps to cool down at night. They insist on killing the power and exhaust while the film is tailing out. I'd often go in and find the tails of prints still in the projectors. At the 18 plex alone, there was an insane amount of lamp failures and emergency lamp changes. When things started going bad we never went a week without at least one or two.

And of course there's also all the trashed prints, damaged equipment and many other issues. They even cancelled DLP shows because the managers forgot which switches to turn on. And they ran a DLP movie with the wrong lens because the new digital feature started on a manager day and they didn't want to pay one of us.

It's my opinion that 90% of the people employed by Loews in the DC metro area have no business setting foot in a theatre ever.

Cutting projection at the Uptown is gauranteed to make the theatre less proffitable, if not sink it completely. It's unlikely whoever goes into the booth will be interested in timing the curtain and lights properly. Even if they don't damage film it won't be the same.

I remember running "Rear Window" at the Uptown a couple years ago and selling out shows on weeknights. And that's for a film that could be rented at Blockbuster for 99 cents at the time. But they came for the presentation.

And I think the pictures I posted above speak for themselves.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-10-2005, 02:36 AM:
 

quote: George Roher

---

So the lamp might get struck three times for each show (which would start partway through the first ad). And when I started my shifts I'd find the intermittents cranked

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Whereas we have the best presentation of any house in the area, including all plattered ones, what are you hoping to prove, a platter can do it as good?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

They have already scratched a reel of film...what are you hoping for? The whole film?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I have NEVER found that to be the case and where as you are pissing in my backyard now...

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

both have their pros and cons.

---

quote: Steve Kraus

---

If cleaning techniques keep the film pristine great. What would be the result of either projection technique with no cleaning employed?

---

A shitty presentation, any way you slice it. I have never, ever seen a presentation that I would call "quality" from a booth that did not use film cleaners on a routine basis. Little tiny black specs of dirt are no big deal to a lot of people, but they drive me insane. As such, if someone is not using film cleaners in their booth religiously, as far as I'm concerned they belong in the "you suck" thread...because they do.

Search the archives on this, because it's a common find (even Guttag can verify this from his testing and usage at the Uptown). People who used to think they had fabulous presentations who got ahold of a film cleaner with FG suddenly realized that their "fabulous" presentations before the cleaner were actually pretty lackluster.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-10-2005, 05:42 AM:
 
I agree. On-line film cleaning is invaluable for keeping the print pristine and free of dirt. Today, almost every lab and telecine transfer facility use on-line film cleaners to keep the negative clean. Theatres should do the same with prints.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-10-2005, 06:55 AM:
 
Actually, the big push for the film cleaner at the Uptown was to undo what previous theatres had done. With the junk leader/tails, no dirt build up occurred. Without the cleaner though, there was little we could do about what others had done...even the labs.

With the film cleaner...it is wiped clean on all shows and the Dolby error numbers drop about a point or 2 within 2-weeks. Thus I conclude, cleaning is better than not cleaning. This push was from the projectionists and is fully supplied and supported by the projectionists at the Uptown. It wasn't from any complaints. Now, even the City Paper have taken notice that is remarkable the condition our prints are in on extended runs (article about a year ago with Return of the King) with the reporter figuring we were in a clean room with cotton gloves to have such a show. The film was in its 12th week or so at the time.

Steve

PS, the last time I saw that much black out on written words it was the Nixon Watergate transcripts! (referring to posts on page 2)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2005, 06:38 PM:
 
You say this is a Cinerama screen. Looks more D150-ish to me. Do you still have another two booths for the other projectors? Perhaps you could put the platter in one of those.

PS - The "arab" onscreen looks incredibly white. What a crappy movie that must be. I'm surprised they didn't get Jack Lemon to play Martin Luther King Jr in some movie. Old movies suck.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-10-2005, 09:16 PM:
 
Actually all four booths exist.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-10-2005, 09:38 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Actually all four booths exist.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

PS - The "arab" onscreen looks incredibly white. What a crappy movie that must be. I'm surprised they didn't get Jack Lemon to play Martin Luther King Jr in some movie. Old movies suck.

---

Arabs have only been brown for the past 500 years or so, before that they were all white. It's called history...
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-11-2005, 07:16 AM:
 
Here's a ridiculous thought. Just move everything back to the original booth at the back of the balcony and put the platter there.

I wonder how many years of projectionist salary that would cost. But never mind, the corporate shirts could still brag how they eliminated the Union and saved mega-bucks. All this while they enjoy their $200/bottle wine and hefty year-end bonuses.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 01-13-2005, 07:47 AM:
 
A few thoughts from the non-operator side...

Theatre by theatre, we're losing the domestic showplaces that have supported the distribution end of the Hollywood system.

To me, there is little difference between locking out qualified union operators or swinging the wrecking ball.

The Uptown has been one of the remaining (reigning) showplaces in this country. Each and every time I've had something run there, people have gone out of their way to make the presentation as perfect as mechanically and humanly possible.

Filmmakers and actors have viewed their work in awe at the Uptown.

Jean Simmons (not Kiss) was nearly brought to tears watching herself on the Uptown screen. Sir David Lean was thrilled by the size and perfection of the image and the overall projection quality. Omar Sharif felt the necessity to visit the booth.

70mm prints are too expensive and too difficult to produce, check and maintain to allow them to be projected by non-professionals.

I'll do everything in power to keep my work out of the Uptown unless the situation is properly remedied and the booth is back in the right hands. No one in their right mind should allow a $40,000 print, of which only a handful exist, to be projected by management.

As far as 35s are concerned...

focus, framing, tension and stability really don't matter once you've added that emulsion scratch to the center of the image.

If anyone from management happens upon this message, and you don't understand something that's being said here, feel free to contact me for translation.

"What fools these mortals be..."

RAH
 

---

Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 01-13-2005, 11:17 AM:
 
Mr. Harris,
The sad part is that not only will they not see your post, they wont care. I had a friend who works as a projectionist at Sundance every year. They always assemble a team of very good projectionists. At the time we were embroiled in a labor dispute with Cineplex Odeon. He ran into the President of Cineplex and asked him why it was that when they see the movie they want a proffesional running the show but they dont extend the same courtesy to their paying customers. Of course he had no answer. And the question was asked of him in front of a bunch of studio execs. How sad this business has become.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-13-2005, 04:30 PM:
 
People should start using the "pie-in-the-face" technique on bonehead theater and studio executives like they do to politicians these days. Not only to humiliate them at an "all-too-important-hey-look-at-this-expensive-suit-of-mine-thats-where-your-raise-went" conference or convention, but to also remind them of just how close the general disgruntled public can get to them if they wanted to.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-13-2005, 06:55 PM:
 
Thank you Mr. Harris for such kind and accurate words. Your support and efforts for maintining the highest quality levels in cinema are treasured (by some of us, at least).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2005, 06:59 PM:
 
Steve, isn't the Uptown keeping both projectors and the quality operators for special showings and rentals, the likes of what Robert is (mostly) referring to?

Not that this helps seeing Loews run a theater into the ground for the general public's shows, but correct me if I am wrong, the Uptown will still be a place where filmmakers CAN book screenings and be properly taken care of, right?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-13-2005, 07:16 PM:
 
Loews / Cineplex did the same thing on the West Coast. When they ran the Century Plaza Theatre complex into the ground. When they dropped the full time operator from that house and had management run the booth. The operator was there Thursday close, Friday and Saturday all day. OK, it was only a four plex theatre. Here in New York City, I think it is any Loews Theatre under 6 screens are operated by management. Like Frank Angel said in an earlier post, We lost the Loews Astor Plaza. By them cutting the full time operator to just Friday thru Sunday. And someone buying out the lease, to convert it into a live music venue. The days of the theatre chains paying for bad operators are now taking their final tolls. Now they do not want to pay to keep Good operators on staff anymore.

He was transfered to their real hole in the city the Beverly Center complex.

[ 01-13-2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-13-2005, 08:16 PM:
 
Brad, yes both projectors are to remain but there won't be any operators beyond 40-hours (unless things change). It is unrealistic to think there are are people just waiting in the wings to show such events...sure a special one-shot screening will be okay...maybe...depending on how LCE chooses to upkeep the equipment.

I missed John's question earlier about the booths.

ABLE is only a store room now. Baker is where we currently work from (it is on the vertical and horizontal center-line of the screen so we don't suffer the distortions that the Cineramadome does, Charlie houses the rectifiers and has some minor storage. The original booth a the top of the balcony is also nothing more than a store room now. Returning projection to that booth would result in a horrible distortion of the image on the screen.

Ya know maybe that would work...put a platter and some clapped out projector up there for the managers to use and let us keep Baker running two projector...they get their print to ruin and we could run ours in the traditional manner. Nobody would get in anyones way The CP200 can handle up to 4 projectors so it could work!

Steve

[ 01-13-2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]
 

---

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 01-14-2005, 08:42 PM:
 
Steve G's comments in regard to taking the old balcony booth and making it the garbage booth for non-pro screenings may have been in jest -- I'm not certain, but it does express my sentiments.

With professionalism comes responsibility and the knowledge that in handing off a booth to the next shift that everything is in order.

For those unaware, I run a pair of vintage AAIIs in my basement screening room, which were put back into order by BL & S. And I enjoy the effort involved in putting on a professional looking presentation even if I'm only running dailies.

Actually doing it gives one consumate respect for the professionals that do the job properly as a vocation.

Equipment is difficult enough to keep running cleanly and reliably. To place a union projectionist in a position via which they would be walking into a booth for a special screening...

and have no idea what the last "projectionist" had done to the equipment, takes the Uptown out of the running for me for special screenings.

If management continues with their plan, they might as well bring in the wrecking ball, for a theatre without a qualified projectionist is a non-entity.

Afterwards, the people of D.C. can make the short haul to Baltimore and see things done properly at the Senator.

Is that also a Cardinal house?

RAH
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 01-14-2005, 08:56 PM:
 
Yes, the Senator is serviced by Cardinal. The projectionist is still Bill Hewitt --- a real professional.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-14-2005, 10:15 PM:
 
I put in my bit on this over at r.a.m.t but want to add my support for Steve and Jose and the Uptown the way it should be. I was the regular relief projectionist there 20+ years ago and it is an honor to have worked there. I hear that community organizing is going on to save the Uptown before Lowe's does to it what it did to the Uptown. I do think it is important to let everyone you know who cares about film know what is going on.

A question for Steve, or anyone else who knows: Is Lowes near the end of their lease on the building? Will the Pedas bros even allow them to mistreat the Uptown. After all, the reputation of the Uptown directly effects the value of the building. And the rent may be based on annual revenues. Any chance the Pedas will void the lease?

Keep up the fight
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-15-2005, 12:20 AM:
 
Update...I hear the platter is in but not in use at the moment...Reels 8 and 9 are now scratched but R-6 has been replaced.

Anyone placing bets on the entire print being scratched when the platter goes on line?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2005, 12:36 AM:
 
Steveo, it ain't the platter that's gonna scratch them prints, it's them dagum manager operators!
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-15-2005, 12:43 AM:
 
One of the benafits I liked about reel to reel operation was if no one showed up for the show you only ran the first 20 mins. or an hour if on 60's. Breakdown was a hell of a lot easier and less time consuming than platter operation.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-15-2005, 08:06 AM:
 
Brado, with one, you are going to get the other...they have already scratched more film than in my 17-years at the theatre.

Wait until the new form of focus comes in too...it won't be.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2005, 05:32 PM:
 
Steve, let's put the joking aside for a minute.

I think you are misunderstanding my posts as if I am FOR the management and the platter. In reality, and you should know better, I am not for either. Although I have never been able to actually witness a presentation at the Uptown, I've heard enough about it to know what it is like, and it reminds me of my favorite saying "you can't improve perfection", because apparently the Uptown has/had just about as perfect of a presentation as it could possibly be. What my posts are reflecting however is a little rationality into the situation.

For example, you claim the managers have already scratched more reels of film than has been scratched in the last 17 years. Well of course! They are NEWBIES! And you know what else, they did it on REEL TO REEL operation!!! This proves my long standing argument that running reel to reel does in no way ensure that the prints won't get damaged. It is all about who is operating the equipment and their level of caring and skill. Sorry, but you simply cannot argue that fact. The biggest problem here is the manager operators who are not properly trained, and in all probability don't care. The platter is a minimal part of the whole issue, so why don't we concentrate on the real issue instead?

Still though, the entire situation is terrible. Whoever made this decision at Loews needs to lose his job because clearly he doesn't give a rat's ass about presentation quality or the customers. Loews needs to put the underpaid projectionists back at full hours and ship the platter away, because you can't fix what isn't broken.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-15-2005, 09:53 PM:
 
The platter will act as an enabler. In the sense that it enables the unskilled to run the booth. Unskilled running reel to reel is a disaster as we have seen. (We only know about the scratched film and damaged equipment; who knows how many reel changes have been blown, reels started out of frame, etc.?) But also there's no point to it since the booth has to be attended full time. Putting in the platter makes it easier for the non-skilled to put on a show with fewer things to go wrong since it only need be laced up and started once. And of course they can leave it unattended. So day in and day out the shows will go on. The platter enables the unskilled to put on a show but doesn't prevent them from scratching the film and generally putting on an inferior show. Just as with unskilled running of the reel to reel booth. But the latter, with no labor savings, would be pointless.

It's not inherently an evil device. Just the use that it is being put to.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-16-2005, 09:20 AM:
 
Nah, it doesn't prove it...it actually proves just the opposite. LCE has "managed" (get it) to scratch Reels, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. With just one replacement print, we have been able to return the show to scratch free...with a platter system, we would be on our 4th complete print. So, is your glass half-full?

They've yet to scratch reel-1 with the previews and ads...R-1 we could change...we don't have spares of the ads...darn.

This reminds me of Kelly's Hereos...we fix em by day, they blow em up by night.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2005, 04:46 PM:
 
So Steve, have you quit yet? How much longer will you continue to be a part of this?
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-16-2005, 10:12 PM:
 
I simply don't get it. Although I'd still be opposed to eliminating professionals from the booth, I can sort of understand trying to cut expenses in a single-screen theatre if the place isn't doing well. But in a multiplex, let's say you have one projectionist for every 10 screens. Even if you're paying the guy/gal $50 an hour, we're only talking about $5 per hour per screen. How cheap can you get? Even if a tiny percentage of your audience sees one less move per year because presentation sucks, you've lost money. I've run businesses for large corporations and it just doesn't make sense to me. The studios insist on so much, why don't they insist on a professional in the booth?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-16-2005, 10:38 PM:
 
Just to be perfectly clear Martin, the Uptown is doing very well. It is no where near a marginal theatre, single screen or otherwise. Many a multiplex would love to have its numbers.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-16-2005, 10:44 PM:
 
Steve, have you tried drumming up some interest in the local media...maybe a Washington Post columnist perhaps?

I think it's unfortunate that the moderators have altered the thread title from the original which reflected the change from reel to reel operation to platter. As it was not a misleading or teaser title I think it's the right of the original poster to title the thread as they see fit even if others disagree with the implications.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-17-2005, 09:23 AM:
 
>Just to be perfectly clear Martin, the Uptown is doing very well. It is no where near a marginal theatre, single screen or otherwise. Many a multiplex would love to have its numbers.

I have no doubt the Uptown is doing well, I'm just curious if Lowe's may be trying to get it to do less well so it will have an excuse to bail out on it. My fear there is they will bail like they did at the Avalon and trash the place so no one else can use it as a theatre (though that eventually failed at the Avalon).

Also, what's the story with the Cinema?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-17-2005, 09:25 AM:
 
Steve,

I think the moderator that started the thread is the one that changed it. I, personally, think this title more acruately reflects that real issue. The other title isn't really the big picture, this one is. My opinion.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-17-2005, 02:11 PM:
 
The only reason I went to the Uptown was for the quality of the presentation. Must I now call the local business agent to see when a real projectionist is on duty? I think not. The Uptown simply won't see my business anymore. And by the way if anyone from LCE should read this, there are better ways to reduce cost than by reducing quality. Best cost is not necessarily least cost.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-17-2005, 04:14 PM:
 
Steve K - please wake up. Platters are not the cause of life's problems. MANY theaters put on flawless shows with them day in and day out. The issue here is the fact that the Uptown no longer has professional operators. If this thread continues to turn into another platters vs. changeover thread, I will lock it because that's not the problem at hand.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-17-2005, 07:00 PM:
 
I agree Brad! The issue is how darn good the operators there were... literally among the best in the country and how bad its going to get without them! They wre not costing the Uptown that much $$ either as theor salarys were more than reasonable... in fact probably too reasonable. Those guys could put on just as good a show with a platter system if they had to. I consider myself a lucky individual to have seen a film there in 70MM.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 01-18-2005, 07:09 AM:
 
So have they figured out how much money exactly they are losing/saving with this switch? I mean thats what it boils down to is money..
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-18-2005, 09:49 AM:
 
In many locations that have union contracts. It comes down to across the board cutting of labor with the local union operators. Like here in New York City, contracts with Loews Theatres has any location with under 6 screens is management operated. In some locations companies cut jobs or hours. And become what is called a "Limited Service Theatre". With that type of contract the theatre goes from two full-time jobs to one part-time job. Depending on the theatre and what the union & company decide to agree too. That operator would get a dollar or two added to the theatre's hourly pay rate. But would loss 20-30 hours of time each week. Most of the time operators work Thursday 6pm to close, Friday open to 8pm, Saturday all day or 8 hours, Sunday open till 7pm. Those work times are what Pacific Theatres had operators that worked limited service theatres. A limited service Pacific drive-ins had the operator drive between two theatres on their shift. Or the operator worked a limited service shared job. Which was he was employed by two companies at the same time. Example, you have two theatres located a block from each other. One is a 8 plex and the other is a tri-plex. You punch-in at the 8 and set up all the shows and then walk down to the tri-plex and get them ready. That was an example of what Pacific Theatres and Mann Theatres had operators doing at their Hastings Theatre and Hastings Ranch Theatre.

Loews let their Century Plaza Theatre go downhill a few years before it was set to close in Los Angeles. When their Universal City Walk 18 Theatre location opened it was a three man booth. After a few years it was cutback to two operators a shift. It went back to three with the addition of a IMAX screen. They had the operator drive back and forth between the Fairfax Tri-plex and their Showcase Theatre for a time, before they sold both houses. Their Beverly Center Theatre is a true dump to First Run Movies. They let their Marina plex go limited and they out performed a near-by UA Marina 6 Theatre. In Los Angeles AMC has three Local 150 operators doing service for their theatres.

[ 01-18-2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-18-2005, 10:44 AM:
 
Sounds to me like Loews isn't looking at the Uptown specifically, they are just implimenting what, as Bill details, seems to be a corporate-wide policy to cut projectionists' salaries. It doesn't seem to matter if this or that individual theatre will not prosper as well because of the cuts, it's just that they've already decided that this policy will be their cost-cutting move and that it will be good for the company over all. We would all disagree, but that is probably the motivation, not that they singled out the Uptown and actually looked at every aspect of the change and what it would do and decided that it would be a better way to operate the theatre. Sadly, it's just all around bad management.

Makes you wonder what they are teaching them in business school these days.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-19-2005, 01:03 AM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

Makes you wonder what they are teaching them in business school these days.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

....just because an operator is "union" does not automatically make them a good projectionist.

---

SHIT, DAD! Ain't that the shoot-me-where-it-hurts, blessed, unfortunate truth!!!

Of course, no offense to the bretheren who are extremely dedicated within this field, but there are those who can absolutely "taint and stain" this field as well.

And these are the ones whom the "big boys" have decided to kick out and abolish the union in their theatres.

Big example: I know of a 3plex that still has a full time "operator" (he's not qualified to be called a projectionist, in my book), who get's paid 14 bucks/hr-FULL TIME, 40hrs plus!

The booth looks like a cyclone has hit it, presentations horrible with off-centered presentations that aren't even centered within the maskings, flickering, overamped bulbs, scratched prints up the wazooza (Century head with the sliding lens mounts, AW3, Super-LumeX, RAVEN automations...et.al.), uses opaque tape and shoepolish for splice markings, et.al. . Then, on top of it all while the shows are going, has a cot upstairs and snoozes most of the shift.

This 3plex used to be a union house and he was one of the union operators in this area.

Now, since the union is long gone, this 3plex, which is privately owned, has kept the union wage scale for this idiot. Plus, he comes to work half wasted out of his mind to where if you lit a match, he'd explode for sure.

He's an embarrasement to the union as far as I care. His appearance and operations are so discouraging knowing that this is the main cause of the turnaround to the manager/operated system.

It's horrible at times when I go there at times to help them out on some problems that they have had.

thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-20-2005, 08:24 AM:
 
At the Uptown, Able, Baker, Charlie reside at or nearly on vertical centerline of the screen...virtually no up or downward tilt from the projectors.

I dunno who brought up the Union as part of this subject, other than as one of the purposes of getting rid of the operators is to "bust" the union. Union or not, the Uptown had the best.

Lyle, with respect to a union contract...it is the employee's perogative to join, form a union and to collectively bargain for all forms of wages and working conditions...it is NOT the employer's right to not bargain with such a collective unit. In fact, it is against the law. So, if you do get to own your own film theatre, I wouldn't have that attitude. Generally, if you treat your employees well, in any type of business, you don't have to worry about unions. Most places that have unions got them for very good reasons.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-20-2005, 10:30 AM:
 
Steve,

I guess it depends on the State. I'm in a "right to work" state. In my "real" job as an Electrical Engineer, one of the papers I signed upon employment was a contract forbidding me (or anybody else) from forming or joining a union.

I'm sure that at one point in time (before labor laws got really strong) unions were a necessity to guarantee safe working conditions and some sort of fairness in hiring and firing practices. It is my opinion that this is no longer needed. I believe in pay for quality of work and the "union model" doesn't allow that. I also think that is the biggest problem with our education system. Too many teachers that are untouchable because they have tenure that don't have to put effort into teaching if they don't want to.

To sum up, I am 100% in favor of qualified, professional projectionists running the booth and not ushers or M/O. I just believe that the employer and quality employee would both be better off without the union involved.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 01-20-2005, 10:35 AM:
 
So, Steve, any more print damage?
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-20-2005, 11:42 AM:
 
to Steve, for his post.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-20-2005, 12:03 PM:
 
Florida is indeed a "Right to Work" (for less) state. However, as far as joining or forming a union goes, that is federal labor laws. What a Right to Work state gets you, as an employee is the ability to NOT join a union, even if you work at a facility that is serviced by a union contract. You will still be liable for the administrative fees associated with servicing the contract you work under.

You and I share different viewpoints on Unions and their present need or desire. Though I think in 2005 unions are needed more than ever, I also feel that in an ideal situation, a union is an unecessary expense and overhead. There is nothing intrinsic with a union that requires a senority system that takes preference over quality of work though employers may sign away the ability to insure they have the most qualified worker. It is all in how you write the contract.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-20-2005, 12:41 PM:
 
Can an employer make an employee sign an agreement to not join a union? I didn't think that would be legal.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2005, 01:53 PM:
 

quote:

---

Generally, if you treat your employees well, in any type of business, you don't have to worry about unions. Most places that have unions got them for very good reasons.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Florida is indeed a "Right to Work" (for less) state. However, as far as joining or forming a union goes, that is federal labor laws. What a Right to Work state gets you, as an employee is the ability to NOT join a union, even if you work at a facility that is serviced by a union contract. You will still be liable for the administrative fees associated with servicing the contract you work under.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Just thought I would re-quote Steve on that to enforce a major point so many people tend to miss on the union debate. Treat the employees well and pay them what they are worth and the word "union" won't even be a consideration.

---

We have a major car manufatuer in our area. Toyota to be exact, They have been around for around 15 years now and to this day are non-union. From what I understand the union has attempted to come in but voted away by all workers because what they get paid and in benafits was far better than what the union can offer. There have been circumstances where a union has been voted in only to see a plant close soon after.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-20-2005, 04:03 PM:
 
There are several examples where unions have killed the companies they work for by their demands and tactics.

Additionally, federal charges were filed, and I believe convictions have been handed down, against some Chicago union leaders for a campaign of terror they waged against Cinemark, including the use of chlorine gas bombs and an attack upon a theatre manager that nearly killed him.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2005, 05:18 PM:
 
I don't have a problem so much with unions or the idea of unions... they can do alot of good and some do. I just have yet to see anything really good come from IATSE except for members retirement plans.... but thats not rocket science requiring a union to get, creating your own is easy.

My biggest problem with IATSE are the ties to organized crime. Those of you that don't care that you're inadvertantly connected to it.... so be it. The recent crimes commited by members of Local 110 is the best latest example of many years of this sort of stupid behavoir. Yes, I feel bad that the operators at the Uptown have been treated this way.. not only is the lockout illegal but that now leaves only two really decent theatres in the counrty to see a film at.

Mark

[ 01-20-2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2005, 05:23 PM:
 
A union should never do anything that absurd, but unfortunately it does happen up in the northeast.

I wonder if Cinemark was doing their typical thing where they were not engaging in proper and fair negotiations that led to that. They did that down here back in the early 90s and it was PATHETIC the things they did to keep the union out. Had they treated the guys decently to start with rather than as a nice warm pile of shit, the union would've never even been a consideration. Fortunately they learned a little bit from that and they aren't as bad, but I still bet (without knowing any facts on this particular instance) there was unfair negotiations and union-busting going on that initiated that.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2005, 05:30 PM:
 
Unfair or not things still have to be handled in a legal and proper manner by both sides. Those on either side that choose not to make an ass out of them selves and just gain more bad publicity in the long run. Re Cinemark: They are no first class operation anyway.......

Mark
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-21-2005, 03:17 PM:
 
Quote Mark G: "... things still have to be handled in a legal and proper manner by both sides." I couldn't agree more. Not that anyone was planning to, but doing something stupid is likely to land someone in the Criminal Justice system. Let the lawyers fight it out.

Unfortunately LCE seems to believe cutting booth cost is an effective way to achieve meaningful cost reduction. However, that seems somewhat misguided, given what has happened to presentation quality with M/O. As I stated in an earlier post, there are better ways to manage cost. Mgt 101: Best cost is not always least cost.

Now, for some simple math: Given the Uptown was paying nearly $10.00 per hour when I was operating in DC some 30 years ago, the $14.00 they are now paying is a disgrace. Even by the most conservative estimates the prevailing wage should be well above $25.00 per hour. I hope the Union and LCE can resolve this without anyone getting burned. However, I'm not optimistic.

Another aside: I emailed a local newscaster about this story. Previously he has been very high on the Uptown's presentation. He replied in due course but didn't leave the impression he was willing to air the story. I think he realizes that to take sides might bite the hand that feeds. Just my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-21-2005, 06:31 PM:
 
Pssst. The Uptown only pays $12.00/hour and that increase only happened a year ago...prior to that...just the $10.00/hour you remember. We haven't exactly been pushy there.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-21-2005, 06:42 PM:
 
Amazing. And there are those who wonder if they should get an education. Oops, that's another thread.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-21-2005, 07:02 PM:
 
Rick,

Believe me I'm on your side on this one. This is a prime example of the type of cost cutting that will quickly cause a loss of buisness income for LCE. My point was simply that both sides need to do things in a legal manner. Not try the arson or bombing methods as was the case recently with Local 110. I always thing os Forest Gumps line "Stupd is Is As Stupid Does" and that line fits the lengthy history of 110 to a tee.

The thing I watched happen in Chicago was that the union never provided decent training (among other things) for their operators hence alot of them were not very capable... except for the one booth they operated. Machines never got cleaned in alot of locations(at all!), I could go on and on. They even sent a one armed man to run a 70mm booth! He was a nice guy though..... But being nice doesn't make you a good projectionist or technician.

When a Union lets things fall apart like that then they don't have a leg to stand on when legal matters do happen. And that I am afraid is what has happened to alot of locals. Had I had the opportunity or if I ever do to belong to a more progressive local that is strong in at least several areas then I would jump at the chance. As it was my short stint in local 110 kept another person at home on layoff. That sort of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-21-2005, 10:48 PM:
 
From what we were told, the problems between Cinemark and the Chicago union started when Cinemark would not hire union operators for their new complex in Melrose Park a few years back. In addition to the acts that the FBI spokesman in Kansas City refered to as domestic terrorism, they also did things to sabotage the theatre both during construction and after the opening. The manager they nearly killed was the GM of the Melrose Park theatre.

For the sake of argument, however, say they were disgruntled at the way they were treated by Cinemark, how can they justify the use of terror tactics against people who had nothing to do with this? No one in Cinemark's home office had to evacuate customers as their complex was filling with a deadly gas. That task fell on the rank and file staff and management who had no say in anything done in Chicago. It was ushers and managers who were sent to the ER, not Cinemark execs.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-22-2005, 12:47 AM:
 
Damn Steve, I got paid more than that in a platter booth and I was non-union! Hell yeah! No union dues AND higher pay, plus the worry about striking or being ousted wasn't there. Yay unions!
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-22-2005, 04:53 AM:
 
Several of my non-union booth staff in Kansas City were making more than the union guy Cinemark had in Omaha..
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-22-2005, 10:00 AM:
 
Ah, the Uptown. I sort of feel I grew up in that theatre. Certainly I cut eye film teeth there. Huge classic wrap screen, 70mm, and over 1000 seats. It was the best a movie theatre could be.

I saw MMMM World and Clockwork Orange there, among many, many others. I took a date to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in '68. We sat in the balcony. I was so blown away I returned the next day with a bunch of pals I dragged to the show and we sat in, or laid in front of, the front row. The next time I saw the film there, I contained mind-altering substances. It got better each time I saw it.

The films I saw in the Uptown changed my life.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-22-2005, 10:47 AM:
 
Jim, that just goes to show you nothing compares to the theatrical experience!

In the four times I've attempted to watch 2001 - mind altering substances or not - I've fallen asleep on it. I guess you can't really "take in" the movie letterboxed on a 25" screen.

I notice many movies - Kill Bill most recently - where even if there's plenty of seats left, people are stretched out on the floor in front of the front row. I don't see how this would be visually more appealing, but the sound will hit you harder.

It saddens me about the Uptown. I've never been there, or much less been to a single screen, or much less been in any movie auditorium over 450 seats, but from the pics here and memories shared, this place seems like another Northpark now that Northpark is gone.

That's one trend I am seeing with these mammoth chains. They acquire these special, unique theaters that are special for one main reason - the presentation - and run them like your generic shoebox multiplex because that's all they know. I bet over half of those suits in the corporate office have never even SEEN a picture of the Uptown. All they see is the numbers on paper. "Hmmm. Why do we still own a single? How can we cut costs there before we close it?"
They need to realize that presentation is the reason people seek out these theaters. They certainly don't drive several hours because it has more seats or less screens. There's a reason the customers came, and they ruined it.

I also wonder if these chains seriously count losses like they count inventory at the theater level. If the Uptown throws away 5 bags and 10 cups one night (or puts them in "spoiled" or some other retarded form of counting inventory) does that mean that the Uptown just LOST $500 for the company?!? If this is the case, no wonder we had that onslaught of bankruptcies. A $20 case of empty nacho trays fell off a truck on the way to a Loews/Cineplex and cost the corporation $50,000 in sales. Wow! We need to bust a union, fire some people, and close a theater before there's still time!!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-22-2005, 01:56 PM:
 
Thomas,

Theatres like the Uptown get ignored and then closed when chains are run by accountants and investment bankers.. The sad part is that a manager skilled in marketing with some corporate support can keep those older movie palaces running profitably.

The short sightedness of the situation is that the company viewed what they were paying the projectionists as a large payroll expense rather than an investment in the image of thier company.

If more companies viewed their old palaces like, say, Mann views the Chineese, there would be many more of them.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-22-2005, 06:55 PM:
 
Mark organized crime and IATSE is nothing compared to links to organized crime and several film companys and theatre chain ownership
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-22-2005, 07:12 PM:
 
I am curious which circuits and distributors answer to mob bosses???
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-22-2005, 08:41 PM:
 
Thats fine Gord.... And jopb wise I choose not to have anything to with any of them......

Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-23-2005, 03:08 AM:
 

quote:

---

paying the projectionists as a large payroll expense rather than an investment in the image of their company

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Mark organized crime and IATSE is nothing compared to links to organized crime and several film companys and theatre chain ownership

---

quote: Alexander Smith

---

WB charging us for
1200UKP...

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I know of several mall theatres that pay more than that.

---

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

we were charged for it-$400 or $500 for one reel if I remember correctly.

---

..wait until one snags an entire print due to operator error. Then times that amount above for each reel damaged. Then the operating staff gets severly repremanded for sure.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2005, 09:08 AM:
 
Oh yes, oh yes...I hear that they up to print #6 (though print #5 apparantly came in with a scratched reel, imagine that).
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-24-2005, 02:49 PM:
 
If there was ever a theater that NEEDED a DLP projector...
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-24-2005, 03:46 PM:
 
Question: who is ordering the replacement prints? The managers or the projectionists?
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-24-2005, 03:56 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

(though print #5 apparantly came in with a scratched reel, imagine that).

---

quote: Mike Spaeth

---

I find it a little hard to believe that they are up to 6 scratched prints in a single screen in how long? Dustin raised an excellent point ... who is ordering these prints. Sounds like it could be typical union tactics to me ...

---

quote: Mike Spaeth

---

Sounds like it could be typical union tactics

---

That in itself is an accusation.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-25-2005, 12:33 AM:
 
First Mike you are making the aquistions since the union is not there they can't order prints and in the reel world a union projectionist still couldn't order a replacement print without management ok
so union bashing it appears is your goal
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-25-2005, 03:04 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

If there was ever a theater that NEEDED a DLP projector...

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Its oh so easy for a person that is not familiar with a JJ to scratch film on one while it is running

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

since the union is not there they can't order prints

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

in the reel world a union projectionist still couldn't order a replacement print without management ok

---

I wasn't sure how it worked in union shops, thus I asked.

My post was not to imply any wrong doing on the part of the union but merely an inquiry into who was responsible for ordering the replacement prints. Normaly in these situations (booths run by uncaring personal) if a print gets damaged no replacement is ever ordered, so if the managers are ordered new prints that is at least something.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-25-2005, 04:24 AM:
 
Well let's just wait for Steve Guttag to answer the more specific questions. I would also be interested in knowing how much of this damage came from misthreading the projector and how much came from misthreading the platter. They are using a Century JJ projector and a Christie AW3 platter. My money is on that JJ. I've worked booths before with a bunch of 35-only projectors (Simplex/Century/Christie) and that one or two JJs...and films ALWAYS got destroyed on the JJ. There's just something about the fact of it having dual formats that just baffles many people. Heck, even theaters with a bunch of Century SAs and a JJ...film STILL always got damaged on the JJ because it would be misthreaded, even though the path is virtually identical.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-25-2005, 04:45 AM:
 
Brad, are you saying that the problems are with that particular model, or with dual-gauge machines in general? I've never seen a JJ, only DP-70, DP-75 and Vic 8.

Something I have seen, on many 70mm prints, is scratches which from the position on the frame would be just about in the position where the edge of a 35mm film would be. Not that I've seen much 70mm in recent years; I think the last new release was 'Hamlet'. Even the NFT only runs it very occasionally now.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-25-2005, 05:18 AM:
 
stephen, i imagine that's from the upper loop slapping against the 35mm side of the upper pad roller on a jj. the whole assembly turns 180 degrees depending on which gauge you're running.

carl
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-25-2005, 08:37 AM:
 

quote: Mike Spaeth

---

find it a little hard to believe that they are up to 6 scratched prints in a single screen in how long? Dustin raised an excellent point ... who is ordering these prints. Sounds like it could be typical union tactics to me ...

---

quote: Jeremy Fuentes

---

Who trained these people again?

---

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

How, exactly, did they warp a shutter?

---

Probably by leaving the lamp on with the hand douser open when the machine was not running. It's not hard to do.

I agree with Brad. If the Uptown is no longer going to be an example of "film done right," then they should just put in rather than switching to "film done wrong."
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-25-2005, 05:03 PM:
 
When all this started I contacted a local TV critic who was really high on the Uptown. The following is part of his response which presents another opinion on what's going on there:

"I got upset when Lowes opened the Georgetown Theater and started giving it better bookings than the Uptown.--they put Matrix 2 in Georgetown and some lame movie at the Uptown instead of the other way around. It seems pretty clear
Lowes wants to drive business to Georgetown."

He also let me know that he'd enjoyed reading this thread.

...Rick
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-25-2005, 06:55 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Probably by leaving the lamp on with the hand douser open when the machine was not running. It's not hard to do.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

I got upset when Lowes opened the Georgetown Theater and started giving it better bookings than the Uptown.--they put Matrix 2 in Georgetown and some lame movie at the Uptown instead of the other way around. It seems pretty clear
Lowes wants to drive business to Georgetown

---

A possible reason, for that LCE wants to drive the business to the Georgetown - possibly just to eventually shut the Uptown down and call it a tax writeoff of sorts.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-27-2005, 11:04 AM:
 
There is an automation of sorts...each machine has an old Kelmar automation that does nothing more than shut the film down in case of a film break....the lamphouses are tied in but all manual controls are still there. I suspect it happened during their "training" more than anything.

The lamps are 5KW and could stand to go to 6KW. The shutters are the old steal type that don't warp easily.

As to the money of the Uptown...any of you that has access to the EDS information might find it curious to look at that theatre compared to say the LCE Georgetown. The Uptown doesn't just stand toe-to-toe, at the moment, it dominates.

Steve
 

---

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 07-17-2005, 12:27 PM:
 
I am bumping up this thread for an update.

The Uptown went back to having full time projection for the first couple weeks of Star Wars but has now cut the projectionists back to 40 hours a week again.

There are two prints, a manager's print and a projectionist's print. When the managers thread, they use the manager's print (which is considered expendable and is currently trashed). And when the projectionists run a show, they use the projectionist's print (which is in decent condition and has been filmguarded).

So at least the projectionists get to run a print that hasn't been ruined. And the customers, depending on when they go to the theatre, have a chance of seeing a good print. So I guess it could be worse.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2005, 01:49 PM:
 

quote: George Roher

---

There are two prints, a manager's print and a projectionist's print. When the managers thread, they use the manager's print (which is considered expendable and is currently trashed). And when the projectionists run a show, they use the projectionist's print (which is in decent condition and has been filmguarded).

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I can say that none of the projectionists that ran the booth (myself, Jose and Andy) now work there.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

It does not suprise me that while the projectionist's print is better than the "manager's", is not of the same level as we ran it on 2-projectors.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Its both.

---

I agree with this as well.

Film likes to go in a straight line path feeding from the upper reel to lower reel than being laying on its side, running through rollers, bending and twisting in all directions and finally being rested on its side when completed.

Lotsa film footage being exposed there between platter an machine.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-18-2005, 02:07 PM:
 
Gee Steve, it's ashamed you guys aren't good enough at your job to run a film flawlessly on a platter for hundreds of shows and instead you HAVE to have reels to do it.

I guess you and the other two ex-Uptown projectionists need some training.

(Monte - you should see what the film has to go through at the lab. It makes the platter pale in comparison.)
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-18-2005, 02:16 PM:
 
A manager and projectionist print? Sounds like an innerstellar war where the only victims are the people that are providing the salaries...the customers. Why the competition? It sounds like a competition to me, or a you do it your way, we'll do it ours and see who causes the most damage, type of situation.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-18-2005, 02:33 PM:
 
Whoops - our "old style of operations" slips are showing again.(lol) - it's just because that old stuff is how it all began and we're just a little proud that some of us were a part of that era.

I agree, Brad. If one really knows how to do platter, one can run a print for months without any wear on the film. And true also: lab runs with making prints is more extensive in film paths than any platter operation.

Besides, when digital really grabs a hold on this market, some of us will be sitting on the sand of an exotic beach, sipping drinks with the little umbrellas in the glass enjoying the sunset of our years-forgetting all about this.

-thx Monte
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-18-2005, 03:49 PM:
 
Monte: more likely we'll be remembering the industry before "the financial suits" destroyed it.

In the late '70s and early 80's I teched many a world premiere in the Uptown. (before the CP-200) It was quite a place....but even then they had a wierd idea that special shows were not open to the public and that the non-union people would project. At that time, I had the authority to "correct this." My premiere always had the regular guy doing the honors. (Superman 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now, etc) 1000 seats at $1000 each equals $1M...it was not worth "the experiment." charity event.

Louis
 

---

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 07-18-2005, 04:21 PM:
 
Jeremy,

The way I understand it, there is no competition or battle between the managers and the projectionists. The managers simply realize that they are unable to do the job that's been dumped on them and they wanted to have a print that they didn't touch so the likelihood of customer complaints during the busier screenings would be reduced.

People swarm to the Uptown for all the "event" films and it's not unusual to have a thousand people lined up at the box office. One projectionist told me that when the managers first started running the booth there was one instance where a throng of angry customers were pounding on the booth door and the manager in the booth was panicking.

The majority of the people Loews gets to fill these man-op positions are people who don't possess the skill set or mindset to be even a mediocre operator. Anyone who can't learn the bare minimum of threading within a week will probably never be any good at it. And it's been months now and the same people are trashing film at the Uptown.

I've worked with Loews managers who had run a booth for many years and still trashed film, threaded out of frame, and did things you wouldn't believe. But they stay in the booth forever because no one else is willing to do it.

But I think that the managers at the Uptown want to avoid problems and complaints during busier times and are doing what they think is necessary to make the most of a bad situation.

When the Uptown expanded the hours for Star Wars, I was asked to go back to work there. But I refused.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-18-2005, 06:36 PM:
 
Sorry Brad...I just haven't seen the platter theatres ever keep up with the reel to reel ones in print quality. They may be out there but I haven't seen them. However, more to the point...the platter theatres just don't attact the better operators...it is one of the many problems the Uptown currently suffers.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-18-2005, 07:43 PM:
 
Horseshit
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2005, 01:12 AM:
 
..it's called "the absolute art and skill of projecting" - when using the reel machines.

There is that challenge of presenting EACH reel of film in it's most perfect form.

1)The "trimming" of the arcs for best light output.
2)The "whir" of each machine presenting that one reel of film, sitting there checking focus, frame and to make that most perfect changeover when the number setting in the framebox is just right.
3)And actually "living" up there feeling good that those 16 reels of "Ben-Hur" that you ran through those two (or more) machines was the best set of scheduled presentations that you've ran that day and the challenge to make the next assigned shift better at all times.

Then, after that day's run is over with, you do your final cleaning, adjustments-both visual, curtain adjustments and audio, and what is needed to be done before the next day's performance.

Running reel machines was the "romance" that we projectionists have experienced-being that we used our talents and skills to the max and proved ourselves that we have something that no-one can ever take away from us.

Automated booths took that "romance" out of projecting.

Granted, now we have the platter system and it's still the challenge to ensure perfect presentation per each showing and to ensure that the xenon bulbs are at their prime for best light output, but that is such a "cold" feeling when one isn't in total control of their showings when all we do is push a button and it goes by itself.

- kinda like driving an automatic transmission car against the one with a manual transmission: who's in control of the car - you or the car?

We were in control of our showings one hundred percent. This is the "old school" that we know.

I can see why that one fellow, who was offered to operate at the Uptown refused that service: the "romance" was gone.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-19-2005, 07:20 AM:
 
I think that Brad's point is that none of those aspects of manual operation actually improves the quality of the on-screen presentation, when compared with a well-equipped automated booth run by a competent, caring operator.

And I say this as one who enjoys the experience of running manual booths with well-maintained, older equipment. I will drive farther and be paid less to work in the "fun" booths, but I would never claim that I can put on a better show in those places than Brad can with platters and automation.

The point of this thread is not to start a "platters vs. changeovers" flamewar. The real issue here is that Loews has apparently decided that their "presentation house" should be run like a dumpy multiplex, which is shameful.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-19-2005, 08:11 AM:
 
I think everyone has missed an important point. On those nights that have poor presentation, it is "projectionists" who are going to be blamed in the minds of the public. Most would not know that a "manager" is running the booth (or care).

This is just one more nail in the coffin.
 

---

Posted by Dieter Depypere (Member # 3184) on 07-19-2005, 08:44 AM:
 
I agree with you, Monte. I may be a lot younger than you are but I am also only fascinated with running shows manually from reel 2 reel (as I do). Old school at it's best!
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-19-2005, 10:40 AM:
 
For us old-timers.....the head/tail damage dropped to zero when platters were added to an otherwise stable, caring operation. I was not a platter fan initially. However, "life tests" were run by me in the '70's. "Smokey & the Bandit" ran 5-6 shows/day for 58 weeks in a good theatre. Damage was to the colour and eventually the sprocket holes became less square. In a major 70mm house; film damage dropped 95% when plattered. Not only that, but it no longer took muscles to load the reel.

Just like gun control: people damage film, platters don't.

Louis
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-19-2005, 12:05 PM:
 
So based on what's apparently happened at the Uptown, we conclude that managers are incapable of running plattered film without damaging it.

Now I'm not claiming that the local Regal and Cinemark theatres here are perfect and never damage film. But based on my experience there's only a remote possiblity of there being any visible damage, whether on opening weekend or weeks into the run. Maybe a little more dirt after a long run, but scratches are a very rare occurrance. Regal usually seems to have a manager running the booth; Cinemark has Usher Bs or whatever they're called (basically kids who've been trained to thread and start). I've seen prints run at Cinemark for months and still look almost like new (all 3 installments of Lord of the Rings).

How come these local yokels can run plattered film 99% of the time without damaging it, but the Uptown can't? This really sounds like a people thing, not a platter issue.

I'm older than a lot of you and I can remember when theatres were running reels. The first and last minute or so of every reel was inevitably dirty and scratched. Since the widespread adoption of platters, that problem has pretty much gone away. So presentation at typical neighborhood theatres has improved greatly over the years in my experience (which is solely as a paying customer).

[Full Disclosure: The last scratched print I can remember in a long time around here is "War of the Worlds" at Regal, which I noted in my "review". The scratches were very light and almost not noticeable. But it was scratched.]
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-19-2005, 12:22 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

I can remember when theatres were running reels. The first and last minute or so of every reel was inevitably dirty and scratched.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

On those nights that have poor presentation, it is "projectionists" ....

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

So based on what's apparently happened at the Uptown, we conclude that managers are incapable of running plattered film without damaging it.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

I'm older than a lot of you and I can remember when theatres were running reels. The first and last minute or so of every reel was inevitably dirty and scratched. Since the widespread adoption of platters, that problem has pretty much gone away. So presentation at typical neighborhood theatres has improved greatly over the years in my experience (which is solely as a paying customer).

---

This is very much true. Assuming the one-time-per-show threading is done properly, plattered films do not get damaged. Remember also that reel to reel is literally a brute force method of film handling. The first sprocket must pull the film AND the weight and stress required to spin the supply reel. Plus there's the unnecessary stress on the film during rewinding during EVERY show.

Steve will undoubtedly hate me for this, but he just likes the romance of running reel to reel as well as the job security, and both are absolutely fine. The fact that he can run reel to reel without a hint of film damage shows what a professional he is. But let's be serious, keeping a print in top condition on a platter is easier than running reels. Anyone who has run film both ways knows this, whether they WANT to admit it or not. Many people won't for fear of losing their jobs to a platter, because let's face it...a theater with few or one screen under it's roof has a hard time validating the expense of a projectionist to sit by a platter for the entire show, whereas they cannot possibly get away without a dedicated projectionist if he has to continually keep changing reels. Now all of us here know that the cost of one projectionist to ensure the presentation quality is NOTHING in the big picture, but we also all know how cheap and greedy these theater owners really are too. Hence, Steve's continual deception over how platters supposedly damage film. It's a fucking lie. The platter machines themselves do not damage film. Print damage from platters happens because the person operating the equipment doesn't know what the hell they are doing, and would've damaged the film WORSE when running reel to reel because there are more opportunities for error.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-19-2005, 02:45 PM:
 
Brad, I guess I forgot to insert an appropriate smiley. I was being sarcastic. VERY sarcastic. Managers around here seem to be perfectly capable of running film without ruining it. That's why I said "This really sounds like a people thing, not a platter issue". Or a changeover issue for that matter.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-19-2005, 02:50 PM:
 
Sorry David, indeed you did. I started my reply based upon your first comments of the day and was going to edit into it further comments as I kept reading. Still, some manager out there who does do a good job at projection would've picked that comment out and fired things up over it anyway.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-19-2005, 02:54 PM:
 
I actually enjoy seeing the passion you guys show for doing the job right. I understand the "romance" thing too. And I'm not claiming the locals get it right 100% of the time. See my reviews of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "War of the Worlds" for examples of less than stellar presentation. By and large though, platters have been a very good thing for presentation quality in the majority of theatres.


 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-19-2005, 03:37 PM:
 
Remember guys, there ARE a few projectionists who are now also managers. The few I know seem to be able to do both well. They still care.

Louis
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-19-2005, 03:44 PM:
 
After what happened a few pages ago, I feel a bit reluctant coming into this thread again - but, with asbestos suit donned, I'd just like to add one point:

quote: Brad Miller

---

Steve will undoubtedly hate me for this, but he just likes the romance of running reel to reel as well as the job security, and both are absolutely fine. The fact that he can run reel to reel without a hint of film damage shows what a professional he is. But let's be serious, keeping a print in top condition on a platter is easier than running reels.

---

The romance for me is in showing and/or seeing the print in as great a shape as it's possible to do, and I just want too see the right hardware and the right humans in the box to achieve that. In my (admittedly very limited, compared to that of other contributors to this thread) experience and as a general rule, platters are the best bet when you're showing the same print repeatedly for many shows, whereas reel-to-reel is generally a better idea if you've got a lot of prints going through the booth which will only be shown once or twice (an arthouse/rep/archive theatre scenario, in short). Both methods have opportunities for error and poor maintenance to cause problems, but done right either can deliver a good show.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-19-2005, 05:07 PM:
 
Everyone re-read Leo's post. It's dead on the money.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-19-2005, 05:32 PM:
 
For me, it has nothing to do with the "romance" with the job as to my feeling that reel-to-reel is superior...as an employee in a job that I don't need for income, I will only run a reel-to-reel booth THAT is personal preference. I've run platters for decades and often the better paying "gigs" had them.

I absolutley have found that reel-to-reel is the best way to show a movie and handle it. The dirt found at the beginning/end of a reel is the result of an inept operator, not the process. I also don't find issues with rewinding film and don't consider it to be stressful to the film. So far, I've only found 1 platter that thus far seems to not only run film but respect it.

I have yet to find any plattered film, run for any length of time to look as good as I've seen run reel-to-reel for an equivalent amount of time...regardless of platter.

I have yet to go to a multiplex, of any company, where the majority of the films didn't have visible damage showing on the screen...and that includes Louis' National Amusements theatres (aka Multiplex and Showcase).

Ya know we can and have gone round and round on this issue...you all can believe what you want, I will believe what the evidence has shown me. Calling what I said as a "lie" was just plain wrong however. Your experience clearly differs with my own. That is all.

Louis...you mentioned something about operators at the Uptown when you did technical set ups...up until 2005...the Uptown theatre in Washington DC has always had union operators for 100% of all shows. Your memory is mistaken on this aspect.

Scott...as to automation versus human...automation will be more consistant though often less flexible (depending on the attitude of the person ) The simple act of performing a changeover is not inherently better via person. This is true of platter or changeover though. A properly running automation will deliver the same show, every show. I prefer to run a manual show and feel my shows are better and more sophisticated than the typical automation can handle...but with enough complexity in the automation, that too can be duplicated with higher repeatability.

But back to the Uptown...the prints of the Uptown that I've personally seen scratched were scratch in a similar manner to what I've seen it most theatres...just on the Uptown screen it represents 100% of the shows (single screen), the screen is deeply curved (16-feet deep) so any damage also shows up as a curvy line(s) and it is blown up incredibly big...so big that 1.85 films really do look way too grainy..even 75 feet away.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2005, 11:31 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Your experience clearly differs with my own. That is all.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

so big that 1.85 films really do look way too grainy..even 75 feet away.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

You have to remember, the SHOW is everything that the Uptown has to offer and zero cancellations are essential. People drive great distances and plan entire evenings and days around seeing a film there.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

think, that if this newer generation of booth operators ever had the opportunity to run a changeover house, they would probably have a better understanding on what went on to show a movie on the screen, and they would possibly have more appreciation for this form of film presentation.

---

quote: Jeremy Fuentes

---

And there are plenty of minumum wage Usher-B button pushers who put on a damn good show, because its their job.

---

quote: Phil Hill

---

it's ALSO us old fart's responsibility to pass on our collective and specific knowledge to those youngins that love the hardware as well as the "art".

---

quote: Dick Prather

---

I couldn't have said it any better. They had to have been there to feel what it was like.

---

AMEN
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-23-2005, 05:05 PM:
 
I always find it humorous when the whole "just look at how many changeover theaters are still in operation" discussion comes up...and then they are named one by one.

I don't consider myself an old-timer either, but in my young'un days I have ran changeovers and carbon arc (with evil Standard Simplexes) on 2000' reels. I think there is some difference in how the term "old-timer" is interpreted though. To me an "old-timer" is someone who just won't change his ways no matter what and is insistent that all new technology is crap. We see this all the time on these forums in two ways. First is platter/automation and second is digital cinema.

I know at least one guy in his 60s (not on the forum) who while he loves running film via changeover and carbon arcs, openly admits that if the film is going to be ran more than a few times that a platter presentation is going to produce the superior show. (The same goes in reverse if the film is to be ran only a couple of times.) I certainly wouldn't call him an old-timer. Maybe physically he is, but mentally where it counts, he sure as heck isn't.

The best projectionists use all available forms of projection as it best suits a particular need, as each variation has it's weak and strong points. Those who are firmly "it must be ran changeover" or "it must be ran platter" or "it must be ran carbon arc" etc are the ones who in my book are the weaker projectionists. No one form of film transport or piece of equipment is *always* better. It depends on the situation.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-23-2005, 05:58 PM:
 
The difference Brad...in this day and age, I just don't see many advantages to platters...technology has helped the changeover cause too with such projectors as the Kinoton E series. While there are some inherent advantages to the single projector system, I don't find many...but lookie what we have here...another platter/changeover discussion brewing...

Back on topic...the managers couldn't resist...they decided they needed that digital sound...so they used and totally wasted the projectionist's print!

Correction to my previous statement...the AFI/Silver is running 70mm tomorrow (Sunday)...not today...today they had a WC Fields film in 16mm!
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-23-2005, 06:46 PM:
 
IMHO the old-timers were those who cut their teeth on nitrate.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-24-2005, 02:40 AM:
 
..and I did run some nitrate, but not too big of a reel of it. At a drive in for an old intermission reel. 1000 ft of that good ol nitrate stuff. I definitely kept the upper magazine doors closed when that stuff was going through my Motiographs and made sure that the firetrap rollers were turning freely.

Then, my theatre where I worked at for 12 yrs still had the porthole fire steel plate shutters still intact and operational with the lead brakeaways in the middle of the tension chain which was strung across the main of the booth close to the ceiling, and a big CO2 extingusher hanging on the wall near the machines.

..now we have to "fear" when Kodak/Balco, ATi/Christie, and Disney/Dolby shove all of us out of business with their "digital leasing" plan - to get digital in 2000 or more screens.

quote: Brad Miller

---

(with evil Standard Simplexes) on 2000' reels.

---

Them's are FUN machines to play with - barely can get your hand in there when threading being the frame is so narrow. Even had the crank hole to put a crank in if your motor dies. (lol)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2005, 03:35 AM:
 
I didn't like the way they handled film from the first day I touched them.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-24-2005, 07:40 AM:
 

quote: Rick Raskin

---

IMHO the old-timers were those who cut their teeth on nitrate.

---

Given that I handle nitrate 2-3 times a week on average, I guess that makes me old, then!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-24-2005, 08:51 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

While there are some inherent advantages to the single projector system, I don't find many...

---

Steve,
I can think of one major thing that single projector systems contribute to real world presentations and that is consistancy..... be it good or bad consistancy. While in your perfect world changover setups probably do fare very well remember to keep in mind that in the real world of child operators and supposed "chain qualified technical people" they would suffer dramatically and become very inconsistent just about every place.

Brad,

The first theatre that I operated at up in Michigan back when I was a Sophomore in High School had a pair of Standard Simplex's that ran just fine and didn't damage any film. Basically if used within their capability they are as good as any other machine. I still service MANY theatres that run Super Simplex's and a couple that run E-7's and I will say DITTO for them too, any of them are capable of putting out a dam good image if properly maintained. One thing for sure is that all three of those machines are alot better built than the crap that is being made today.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-24-2005, 12:28 PM:
 
You're absolutely right, Mark, my experience indicates the same. Standards, Supers, and E-7's looked like hell as far as the film path was concerned, but unless they were just worn down to nothing, they were very gentle on prints and quiet in operation. I never saw one damage a print.

I also agree that platters remove a lot of potential errors that could be made by an incompetent in a c/o booth. I've seen both sides of that coin. One guy I ran a 20-min. reel booth with absolutely would not endeavor to thread in-frame. So, nearly every one of his changeovers would come up out of frame. He just attached no importance to it, saying that's what the framing knob was for. I later ran a 6k reel booth with another guy who said the same thing, although, I forced him to pay attention to it by REMOVING THE FRAMING KNOB. He wined and cried about it, but I made my point.

And I completely agree with Brad that, in today's climate, there is a time and a place for each system. I have recommended both in the appropriate installations over the years.

Personal druthers: if i'm projectionist, I'd rather be at a drive-in somewhere in the sticks, with 20-minute reels and some big-ass carbon lamps, like Ashcrafts. If I owned a theatre, though, and someone else was going to be operating, it'd be a platter hands down.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-24-2005, 12:37 PM:
 
True. Just when I had to do a rebuild on an E-7 (intermittent rebuild, gate and trap rebuild with new rail and guide parts, rebuilding that damned oblique shaft with the new fibre gears and putting in the appropriate shims behind the oblique shaft mounting plate for the correct gear spacing...), that E-7 ran so quiet, smooth and with a very steady picture, that all one could hear was the Strong platter whirring and the blower on the lamphouse whizzing away. And one couldn't even hear that machine through the port window which wasn't covered with glass

And I agree also with the Standards: thread them right and take care of them with the continual maintenace (since these machines had projectionists, not "B-ushers" to handle them) and these "old timers" can handle film as they supposed to do and much better than these newer machine can - being built with such better precision and more of a hands on quality than with these newer ones. (Why I miss my Motiograph AA's)

DeVry Portables were fun to thread as well.

quote: Tim Reed

---

with 20-minute reels and some big-ass carbon lamps, like Ashcrafts.

---

LOL - Big ass carbon lamps would be those Peerless Hy Candescents condensor arcs, Stong 135's or the Futura IIs with 13.6mm rotator positives. But the big-assed Ashcraft, as you want, are the Corelite variety with that blower assembly sitting on top of the lanphouse.

You know, one could miss running carbons..that kept you busy. LOL

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-24-2005, 12:58 PM:
 
"LOL - Big ass carbon lamps would be those Peerless Hy Candescents condensor arcs" Na JetArcs that is the real lamphouse
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-24-2005, 02:02 PM:
 
Yea, JetArcs are so big even on a DP-70 that you have a difficult time ever locating the projector mechanism..... .

Tim, The nice thing about Standards,Supers, and E-7's is that you can install a Posi-Trol intermittent sprocket on them and they are actually as steady or steadier than a brand new Kinoton. The parts in those old movements were made of actual real high quality steel and machined by artisians.... not some number cruncher running a CNC machine. Granted those old Simlpex's are not as light efficient but they are definately no slouch in the image quality department.

I too have removed framing knobs to get the point across. Works good till that guy quits and they hire a replacement projectionist.....

quote: Dick Prather

---

I couldn't have said it any better. They had to have been there to feel what it was like.
Dick
IATSE #159

---

Dick,
There's a very easy way to explain the differences with some comparisons. running a small 35mm two machine booth was akin to flying a Cessna 150, Running a larger two machine booth was like flying a DC-3, while running a two machine 70mm booth is akin to flying a 727. That puts 15/70 akin to taking a trip to the moon on a Saturn V.

Is Local 159 still in existance?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2005, 04:11 PM:
 
Interesting, a few years back Joe and I were pushing the idea of locking the framers down (or removing them) and we got blasted by pretty much everyone. Now suddenly the idea is acceptable?

I get the need for framing controls on art houses and such, the mainstream theaters that only play stuff from the majors really don't need to worry about printing that is slightly off or 1.66 aspect ratio prints, etc.

(Let's please not sidetrack this topic even farther off-course. I just thought this was humorous and should be pointed out. )
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-24-2005, 04:16 PM:
 
What I want is a "fine" framing adjustment which has a full revolution (at least) of travel, but adjusts no more than one perf in either direction. There should also be a "coarse" framing adjustment which can be locked down if desired, and adjusts framing in one-perf increments, with a click stop or other indication that one has adjusted the framing by exactly one perf. That would make it easy to correct for a mis-framed splice without screwing up the exact positioning of the image relative to the frame (if that makes any sense).

This should be trivial to implement in an electronic projector (if it hasn't been done already).
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-24-2005, 07:14 PM:
 
..got me on that one. Never heard of the JetArc lamphouse. Gotta picture of one?

thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2005, 09:54 PM:
 
It's been done Scott, on the Showscan system at least. It is also something I asked the Kinoton boys from Germany to implement, but my idea to them went one farther in that you would put a cue across the frameline at the end of the leader that would function not only as a start/douser open cue, but would also function to "auto frame". Essentially, there would be sensors to see which of the 4 perfs the film was threaded on and jump 1 or 2 perforations in either direction on the intermittent to force it in frame. Then a "too big" and a "too small" loop sensor would work together to speed up or slow down the two constant speed sprockets. This way as long as the film was thrown into the projector with the correct threading path and soundtrack towards the operator, loop sizes and framing wouldn't matter. Every show would automatically adjust itself perfectly.

(Of course no one likes my ideas.)
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-25-2005, 03:50 AM:
 
I can see where Scott is coming from with his dual method of framing adjustments: kinda like shortwave radio with the coarse and fine tuning - a tuner with two knobs one inset of the other.

Be a bit of a complicated and costly framing device with this method. Yet, one will be constantly fighting the fine tuning due to the labs just can't get the picture printed where it supposed to be being dead center between two sprocket holes, and there is no such thing as two reels being the same - one has to be slightly different than the other...

One just have to live with what we have and make the best of it.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2005, 04:06 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

(Of course no one likes my ideas.)

---

We've been talking about that one for years now! I think the projector manufacturers don't want to spend a few bucks in R&D to come up with a design that will do that.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 10-06-2005, 08:05 PM:
 
Brad, the lack of enthusiasm for your auto-frame idea (and many other's ideas) may be due to Kinoton's having learned the hard way that most cinema owners just will not pay for advanced features. Example: a number of years ago Kinoton showed a FP-30D with auto focus (using a video camera aimed at a section of the screen feeding a computer driving a rapid acting focus motor). This thing worked great. I could repeatedly open and close the skate a bit and the image stayed right in focus. It added a couple thousand to the price. Sales? None. So after dumping lots of $$$ into R&D for things that the owners just won't buy, I suppose one gets tired of these expensive exercises.

By the way, the Kinoton's E series always stops with the movement "set" so misframes from misthreading are way less likely, and the endless electronic framing can be remoted easily so framing errors can be corrected easily from the auditorium. Wow, those things coupled with better stability and focus; operator safety, etc; they must be jumping off the shelves! Well the PK-60E (primarily made for the US market) was discontinued due to almost non existant sales. Why? It cost more than a geneva machine.

Larry
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-06-2005, 10:35 PM:
 
I can only think of one screen out of about 700 that uses its remote focus and thats in Winnemucca, NV of all places..... two Prevost P-93's.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-07-2005, 08:13 AM:
 
Many of our projectors in screening rooms and special venues have and take advantage of the remote focus capability.

I think an issue, Larry, is the cost versus the perceived improvement. $2K-$3K is an awful lot of money to an exhibitor for that kind of improvement. It probably did not have anywhere near that much technology in it. You figure how much time is alotted to the showing of a movie in a multiplex and just how low they pay those people...the return on investment for an auto-focus machine at multiple thousands of dollars/per screen, will likely exceed the life of the modern theatre that tends to only be viable for 15-20 years.

As to the PK60E...what does it offer the exhibitor for its added cost? Don't say picture steadiness. The PK60D is already steadier than most release prints can achieve. What is the difference in cost to not only purchase but maintain a mechanical movement versus electronic? Keep a mechanical movment (anybody's) in proper lubrication with some oil changes now and then and they are nearly indistructable.

What an "E" machine does bring to the table is quite a bit in the right application. The ability to dial out the image movement for running "IK" prints...the ability to slow down the projector for running silent films without the need to change shutters or have horrid amounts of flicker. The ability to have a single machine that can handle different pulldowns (2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf...etc)...and the list does go on. Unlike a mechanical intermittent, the "E" intermittent will run a 30fps show without thinking twice about it...again this points towards special venue.

I would think most of the "E" customer base would be using FP30E(S), and the studio and special venue machines...that the PK60E and FP50E, targeted for mainstream cinema just wouldn't understand or see the value for the increased cost. Now if something like a 48fps format were to catch on, especially if it is less than 4-perfs per frame, then an "E" machine, would have distinct advantages for even the conventional cinema.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 10-07-2005, 09:28 AM:
 
Mark, I was speaking of automatic focusing, not just a remote.

Steve, you may be right about these devices (although personally greatly reducing misframes and bad focus by the inept would seem a boon to the industry), but I was mainly making the point that Kinoton may lack enthusiasm for ideas such as Brad's due to its having expended lots on other suggested improvements that were not supported by the exhibitors.

Larry
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-07-2005, 04:27 PM:
 
It seems to me that part of the problem is that at Kinoton, everything is an Option. For some of these improvements, you have to bite the bullet and make them standard. Yeah, that raises the price for everybody...

[This is a marketing game. You don't see much Kinoton advertising, either, and none of it stresses the advantages of the E series.]

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-07-2005, 05:05 PM:
 
So Larry, if someone wanted to buy a machine with the auto-focus option, would Kinoton still build it? I had no idea that was an option, but it's a damned cool one.

(Plus that feature would make Steve happy because then film could be wound emulsion in without focus drift. )
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-10-2005, 07:43 AM:
 
If you think about it, focusing an image from the projection room is probably the worst location for obtaining optimum focus, since you are farther from the screen than most everyone in the theatre. Kodak's screening rooms all have remote focus capability, so the image can be critically focused from near the screen.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-10-2005, 10:41 AM:
 
Options = opportunity to have it your way instead of this what you get and no more Kinoton's core of standardized parts makes custom requirements easy to implement.....it is hard for most manufacturers to advertise everything they are capable of suppling.
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 10-10-2005, 08:48 PM:
 
Just curious...is the typical remote focus control on a screening room 35mm projector a “forward/back” control (similar to a Kodak Ektagraphic slide projector with remote focus) or a more precise servo control?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-10-2005, 08:56 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

...focusing an image from the projection room is probably the worst location for obtaining optimum focus...

---

Gosh John, that's why I always carried binoculars in my goodie bag.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-10-2005, 09:55 PM:
 

quote: Phil Hill

---

Gosh John, that's why I always carried binoculars in my goodie bag.

---

Of course, the grain on some of the new Kodak VISION2 films is so fine that you need to be inches from the screen to see and focus on it.

For remote focusing, we use either simple geared-down bi-directional DC motors or geared-down selsyns to turn the focus knob.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-11-2005, 12:29 AM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

Of course, the grain on some of the new Kodak VISION2 films is so fine that you need to be inches from the screen to see and focus on it.

---

Unfortunately that doesn't matter anymore since most movies have a digital master that is outputted to film. These movies look ok if you sit far enough back and the screen isn't lit too well, but if you are sitting close and have solid light output, it's blatantly obvious which movies come from a digital master.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-11-2005, 07:10 AM:
 
Some XLs had a screen scope attachment that aided focusing.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 10-11-2005, 01:21 PM:
 
Brad,
Unfortunately I'm sure they wouldn't consider it unless there was an order for a decent quantity. But yes, it was damned cool.

John,
The video camera used a long lens so as to compensate for that issue.

Larry
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-12-2005, 12:34 AM:
 

quote: Rick Raskin

---

Some XLs had a screen scope attachment that aided focusing.

---

quote: William Hooper

---

Those things are cool, but binoculars are better.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

The even more frightening development at the Uptown is the new Sunday morning church services! The neighborhood was pretty frightened, but it seems right now the church (which is from McLean, VA) is not taking over, but I would still be wary.

---

I don't follow. It's a somewhat common occurrence for a church that lacks a normal worship/assembly place to rent out space in theaters, other churches, schools, etc. It'd be unlikely for them to take the place over like that. Plus, even if they had the cash to buy the place (which they probably don't, otherwise they would've bought space already) they'd likely need money to renovate to their liking as well.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-23-2007, 08:16 AM:
 
Quite a number of ex cinemas over here have been taken over by various churches in fairly recent times, say the last twenty years or so.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-23-2007, 08:49 AM:
 
A new definition to the phrase "cathedral of the movies"
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-23-2007, 09:04 AM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

I don't follow. It's a somewhat common occurrence for a church that lacks a normal worship/assembly place to rent out space in theaters, other churches, schools, etc. It'd be unlikely for them to take the place over like that. Plus, even if they had the cash to buy the place (which they probably don't, otherwise they would've bought space already) they'd likely need money to renovate to their liking as well.

---

I'll try to avoid drifting into the religion and politics area's, but from what I've seen, this church is pretty rich and already has a place in VA (in a very rich town over by the CIA) and that it has decided to do "missionary" work in the very rich neighborhood in which the Uptown is located. The neighborhood is very supportive of the Uptown and wants it to stay a movie theatre, and was concerned that it was going to go full time church.

I'm about 1000 miles removed from it, so I'm relying on friends in the area. The links, alas are at home.

And, yes, the DC area has many, many old theaters that are now churches.
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 07-23-2007, 10:23 AM:
 
The Elim Pentecostal Church bought the Coronet Theatre (also known as the Gaumont 1950-1977), Notting Hill in London, fortunately it has remained a cinema.

Brief History of the Coronet Theatre since 1898. Screen two was constructed in the old stage area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notting_Hill_Coronet


Dates corrected and history link improved.

[ 07-24-2007, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Bernard Tonks ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-25-2007, 07:36 PM:
 
Theaters may be converted into churches here and there, some probably should be but those that have been to the Uptown would hate to see it come to an end. Besides, If memory serves me the National Cathedral right down the street a ways form the Uptown. Ya don't need much more church than that!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-25-2007, 08:37 PM:
 
Guess I had just never heard of such a thing happening. Around here, churches pretty much only go for their own building and go to places like theaters to wait until they get their chance for a place of their own.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-26-2007, 01:28 AM:
 
Chris, once you head westward past the Rockies, then you see some of this - theatres converted to churches..
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-26-2007, 02:05 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Chris, once you head westward past the Rockies, then you see some of this - theatres converted to churches..

---

I'm in Seattle, so I know a bit about going west.

Though I'm moving to Houston for grad school in September. But that's not related to this obviously.

Oh and I remembered that our head manager had, in fact, talked to the pastor of the church that used to meet at our cinema about the possibility of buying the Totem Lake Cinemas for their church (since it had been empty for at least a few months at the time). But by now the place is reopened by some local owners and doing nothing but Bollywood features.

But I was more indicating that I'd think it strange for simply the fact that a church meets there for one service means that the place is being taken over; the church I mentioned was at my theater because they didn't have their own place and wanted an accessible location.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-26-2007, 09:15 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Chris, once you head westward past the Rockies, then you see some of this - theatres converted to churches..

---

There are'nt any conversions here in SLC.... the Morons just mow em down with a bulldozer and build a new temple.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-26-2007, 09:52 AM:
 
There are a lot of former Loews, RKO and other large theatres that have been converted into churches here in New York City, since the 1970's. One of the largest is the former Loew's 175th. Street "Wonder Theatre" it seated 3400 people and the old Warner Hollywood Theatre (Times Square Church) which seats 1500 people in Times Square.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-26-2007, 01:36 PM:
 
( Okey, Mark - quit being so mean now. I know that getting older gets one a bit more meaner... but, all of them aren't that bad)

And I'm bad too - meant to say "heading EASTWARD" ... not westward....shouldn't be tying when super tired..

But, did like the Wikipedia story on the Coronet. Is the "Gaumont" the same "Gaumont" in the Gaumont-Kalee projector?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-26-2007, 03:38 PM:
 
I'm hardly what would be classified a mean person. I just tell it like it is. Not many historical buildings left in SLC except church related. Sad indeed!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-26-2007, 04:19 PM:
 
Oh do agree - I remember when the UPTOWN in SLC came down (huge downtown palace) for the ZCMI mall on the corner of Main and 1st So in the late 60's. But, that old palace really needed to come down being that it the land that the whole block was on was more valuable than the buildings that were there, let alone those buildings were way too far gone for restoration.

And, same as the block that the old Centre was on the corner of Main and Broadway (300 so.)-theatre was still in great shape, but everything around it was too far gone, along with the land value being tons more valuable.

..guess you can call it "moving forward with land utilization" instead of just letting old buildings sit for memory's sake..and costing the owners excessive property taxes.

Course, the city did the same here in Boise: Had a grandeur palace - as grand as the Egyptain, called the Pinney - but the block that the Pinney was located in was in horrible decay, thus the entire block came down for the newer and the better and not bothering doing anything with the Pinney.

Only thing that remains of the Pinney is the granite nameplate that was on the corner of the property, is now located at the park of the Fort Boise area.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 07-26-2007, 04:32 PM:
 
Like Bill said, a lot of the old big theaters are converted to churches around here. More so in the surrounding counties. It seems like they are everywhere. They take care of the buildings and I have really never heard of any problems. Maybe one day they will leave and the theater will run again..........Wishful thinking.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-26-2007, 07:22 PM:
 
A couple churches expressed interest in the Byrd Theatre over the last 6 or 8 years, none could come up with the asking price. One came close though.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-30-2007, 06:54 PM:
 

quote: Bill Gabel

---

There are a lot of former Loews, RKO and other large theatres that have been converted into churches here in New York City, since the 1970's. One of the largest is the former Loew's 175th. Street "Wonder Theatre" it seated 3400 people and the old Warner Hollywood Theatre (Times Square Church) which seats 1500 people in Times Square.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Legend has it that Loews "sold" these buildings to church groups for $1.00.

---