Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Teenagers don't care about blurry pictures as long as films are action packed!

This is topic Teenagers don't care about blurry pictures as long as films are action packed! 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=007351

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 07-24-2005, 01:03 PM:

Believe it or not, this is a quote from a book I am curently reading entitled "The Big Picture," which concerns the motion picture industry, including production, distribution and exhibition. This particular quote is attributed to an unnamed "multiplex owner."

The thing I am not clear on (and perhaps the author doesn't know what he is talking about) is the following. The book states that since multiplexes now have one projectionist running multiple screens, occasionally an unattended projector may have a film get snagged and burnt by the projector lamp. As a preventative measure, the book claims, multiplex owners have their projectionists "slightly expand the gap between the gate that supports the film and the lamp. As a result of providing this margin of safety, flims are shown slightly out of focus."

After this statement, the above mentioned "multiplex owner's" observation about teens not caring about blurry pictures was inserted. This same mystery man went on to say that "Efficiency requires trade-offs." Then the text continued on to say that this practice also entailed leaving lamps in so long that the picture eventually dims to near darkness, all in the name of saving money.

Well, what is this "expanding the gap" crap? Has any one out there ever been "ordered" to do this? And, finally, do any of you buy this junk about having crappy presentations because of the supposed low expectations of teens?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-24-2005, 01:16 PM:

No, I have never heard of any widening the gap talk or do any of the things mentioned in the book. Even so why is it running out of focus. There is a thing called a focus knob.

Posted by Dieter Depypere (Member # 3184) on 07-24-2005, 01:46 PM:

Sorry that I say that but this is an absolute piece of crap. Why on Earth should I, the poor projectionist, show the film out of focus!? That's the same as if I should show the film without the xenon turned on!?

Some guys do have ideas... They should sign up in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's most dumb idea...

By the way, the audience (the youth belongs to the audience) is expecting a perfect show.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-24-2005, 01:50 PM:

Most kids don't care about the presentation because they're just there to do something.

Edit: The moron who wrote that book doesn't have a clue.
Increasing the gap by what...a couple mm? That's not going to really do a whole lot for the heat.
And it IS possible to get a good focus out of most projectors so long as everything is aligned, no matter what the xenon is doing...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2005, 02:11 PM:

I think people DO care about focus, they just don't complain about it unless it's severe.

The guy writing that book clearly doesn't have a clue and the one theatre owner he talked to doesn't have one, either.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-24-2005, 02:51 PM:

Although, judging from the pictures I've seen in some multiplexes, you'd think what the guy said was true but there's really no truth to it. However, I agree that teens don't go to theatres to see movies but to be seen. Have you ever been to a high school football game? I'm sure many of the kids there don't even know who has the ball.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2005, 04:07 PM:

Wow, who was the author of that?

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 07-24-2005, 04:26 PM:

Author wrote:
As a preventative measure, the book claims, multiplex owners have their projectionists "slightly expand the gap between the gate that supports the film and the lamp."

I believe that the author is talking about defocusing the lamp house to reduce the hot spot of heat which can burn the film.
Surely this will not bother the audience who care little about flat lighting of the gate. If the screen image were to be out of focus that would be foolish.

Many authors do a crash course in the subject they are writing about. The course usually consists of some questions asked of the knowledgible person. The author then quotes what is said in response. The context may not be what the responder thought.

In this case "out of focus" with regard to lamp to gate distance and not screen image focus.

KEN

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 07-24-2005, 05:10 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Wow, who was the author of that?

The author's name is Edward Jay Epstein.

Being a fan of Godzilla movies, I found it amusing that he lists the Toho film studio in Japan as Tojo.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-24-2005, 05:18 PM:

Ken, you are giving this author way more credit than the imbicile deserves. EVERYTHING he stated is a pile of crap. If he meant to say defocusing the lamp is done to keep the film from burning (a properly focused lamp BURNS film?), then that's what he should have said, not keeping the picture out of focus keeps the film from burning. If he didn't know shit from shineola about the business, then he should have researched it a little more than just asking one single person, and a multiplex owner at that, about what goes on in the booth. By doing a slipshod job, he winds up putting totally incorrect information in book form about how a theatre is run.

His blanket condemnation of all teenagers as being mornons is as accurate as his statements about showing films out of focus. As easy as it is to lump teens into a single catagory and attribute a host of unflattering negatives to them, it's just a cheap form of prejudice. Come on....ALL teenagers would sit and watch a movie out of focus? I don't know any who would or who only want to see action titles and I am around them all the time. I run movies for them and they are exacting about quality as any of my older patrons. So this author needs to go back to Writing 101 and leave a serious tome about the theatre business to someone who actually knows what he's talking about AND knows how to write.

And Robert, best thing you can do with that book is chuck it in the trash. Reading any more may just get your even more inaccurate information. The Big Picture....by The Big A-Hole.

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 07-24-2005, 06:53 PM:

When I was a teen, I definately cared about focus. I, for the most part, stopped going to movies in the old theatre here because the screen was torn and had been taped back together, there were lines all over everywhere and the sound was still mono. From what I remember, prints were taken care of but the building and screen had gone to pot.

I think the author meant just what he said... prolly adjusting the trap tension to the loosest setting, and even perhaps putting shims to pull the trap mount back. Result, floppy film through the gate and shakey and out of focus image. I'd almost bet money that is what the "multiplex owner" was describing to him and he just simplified it. All this thinking that the film would pass through the gate easier thus, suposedly, not snagging (the word that was used). I guess the owner feels that if the projectionist is not there for a brain or tail wrap, the loose gate will still allow the film to go through easier????

Why they don't just instead, inplement a walk around every 10 minutes or so policy to keep things in check is beyond me. 90% of brain wraps are due to a mishap on threadup anyway so a walk by after starting a round of shows and the guy should be able to see any mistakes he missed the first time anyway. I know my biggest mistakes are simply just walking away from the projector area too fast after starting a movie when things get rushed. Startup is more the issue for multiplexes, because of often having to get two or three movies started at 7 o'clock or whatever, than keeping a watch on things while the movies are running is.

I think the whole thing here is that people are just buying theatres but don't really know how the biz works. How could an owner than knows what he is doing justify things like that if he really knew how the stuff worked?

Just crazy. No wonder box office numbers are so far down.... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-24-2005, 08:05 PM:

This author's statement begs the question.

To say that "the projectionist" does anything to the projector implies that said "projectionist actually knows diddly squat about the projector. We all know that virtually nobody inside the booth of an average googolplex theater knows even the slightest thing about how to prevent burning the film... Let ALONE even CARE about film!

Furthermore, he assumes that there is even a "projectionist" in the first place! We all know that the average googolplex theater uses managers instead of projectionists to save on payroll cost.

This idiot probably hasn't even been inside a projection booth, much less a theater in 20 years!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2005, 09:11 PM:

Edward Jay Epstein is a moron.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-25-2005, 10:13 AM:

Amusing. Reminds me of this thread from a few months ago.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-26-2005, 05:13 PM:

Unlike the book Michael savaged (I've since seen it, and would say that if anything, his review is overly complimentary!), this one doesn't claim to be primarily about the technology. According to this review (link to Washington Post review of Epstein's book by Jonathan Yardley, originally published 27 Feb 2005), it mainly deals with the changing economics and marketing practices of Hollywood in the '90s and '00s. So I guess that projection is a side-issue, and certainly not something he's likely to have researched very carefully.

So, without having read the book, I'd speculate that we have a classic case of a film writer who, to quote Dorothy Malone's character in The Big Sleep, 'affects a knowledge of antiques, but hasn't any' as far as technology is concerned. I could compile a pretty long list of books and articles that are OK, and some even quite good, until they try to make arguments based on technological issues and concepts their authors don't understand: at which point out spouts the bullcrap. The reason is that these guys all did English/history/economics/modern languages etc. etc. at college/university, and so technology to them means pressing the play button. Worrying about the shite they write too much is a quick way to an early grave, sadly. Randy's right: he probably hasn't been inside a projection booth in 20 years - if he ever has at all.