Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Stadium Seating

This is topic Stadium Seating in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000018

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-07-2000, 02:55 PM:

Ok, let’s get into stadium seating.

The first stadium seating theatre I saw was IMAX in DC in 1976 and I said to myself, “Self, all theatres should be like this.” So I had the idea first and I should be rich.

For the record, my business partner, Ky doesn’t like stadium seating at all.

I kind of like it. One theatre by me is a Pacific 16 that was put into an old Costco store. As a result they had to make a few compromises in the design. The ceilings were not high enough so the dug pits for the screens to sit in. as a result the entrances and emergency exits and the handicapped seating are all on one plane. This plane ends up as the first quarter of the auditorium. This works really well. I like to sit there so if I were handicapped I wouldn’t mind being there. The stadium angle is also rather shallow; there is only one step between seat rows. I like this. The steps are very even. There is 8’ from the projection port to the back row. Looking at the picture, my head seems to be square on my shoulders. This theatre uses 7-inch risers.

The new 14-plex that was built in this town has really steep stadium seating. There are two steps between rows. The steps aren’t evenly spaced. The back row is right under the projection port. As I entered the second to last row while the trailers were playing, my head got into the picture. At the end to the film, I crossed each row on the way out and my head entered the picture down to five rows from the back. I am 6’4” tall but still this seems to be too much. The handicapped seating is in the front row. The entry and exits are on the bottom of the rake. I feel as though I am always looking down on the image on the screen. This theatre uses 14-inch risers.

Since the projection booths are usually on the same level regardless of how big the auditorium, I have noticed an alarming trend. As the houses get smaller the stadium risers get taller. In one theatre in Denver, I get vertigo in the smallest houses and don’t in the larger houses. UA Colorado 9 where the largest houses have 4” risers and the smallest houses has 9” risers.

I like Continental seating. This is where there is no center isle and there are only side isles. Stadium seating usually takes this approach. I was thinking of a hybrid design where the front two thirds of the auditorium is a traditional slope and the back third is a shallow stadium. We all know that stadium seating is harder to clean. So perhaps this would help. Stadium seating costs 50% more to build and perhaps a hybrid design would save some money. Anyway this hybrid design is as far as my business partner will go.

p.s. My two favorite houses in Denver had very shallow stadium seating. The Continental has 2” risers and the, dearly departed, Cooper had 4” risers. These two houses were built in the 1960s.

What do you think?

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 07-07-2000, 05:11 PM:

Ok, let me just qualify one thing that Ian said. When I said I hated stadium seating it was based on my first experiences with it - all at AMC plexes. I hate the AMC way of stadium seating - its way to steep. I don't want to feel like I have to repel down to exit the theatre. Stadium seating that I do like includes the less steep kind built by Sony/Loews @ Metreon in San Francisco and some of the Carmike stadium seating I've seen in Montana.

But over stadium seating, I'll take a steeper floor rake such as Landmark Theatres used at the Embarcadero Center Cinemas in San Francisco, the Hillcrest in San Diego and, I'd assume, in their Boston properties. All the benefits of stadium seating - ie. clear view of the screen - without the steps.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-07-2000, 09:26 PM:

I don't particularly like the Landmark "steep-slope" concept, myself. They have this in their Boston location (the Kendall Square Cinema, which is actually in Cambridge) and I find it very uncomfortable. The problem with this is the same as the problem with most of the stadium arrangements that I have encountered--they mount the screen way too high on the wall, which makes it very difficult for those of us who like to sit fairly close to the screen to find a decent seat which is both close enough to the screen for our tastes yet is not so close as to cause neck pain during the course of a two-hour film. In many such theatres, this seating location does not exist.

I'm really not a fan of the Landmark Kendall Square house at all. In fairness, the decor is tasteful and they can properly show all formats (including flat/Academy and Europen widescreen 1.66:1, as well as 16mm), but the seating is uncomfortable and most of the screens suffer from "red exit-sign glare" syndrome.

As for generic "stadium seating," I'm mostly familiar with the AMC new-construction concept and the Regal retrofit concept. Both of these have the same problems listed above--screen too hign on the front wall--and both (AMC in particular) suffer from a steep projection angle and very short throw, which causes annoying distortion on screen. Apparently GCC is adopting the AMC concept for some of its houses...many of the auditoria in the Framingham theatre have been (badly) retrofitted to stadium configurations. The new #1 house is just awful; it was originally a Showscan (70mm/60fps) venue and is now a regular 35mm theatre, featuring a giant-size screen (which can't be properly lit, even with a 5kw lamp) and a really short throw, which makes the image nearly impossible to focus. Grr. I won't even mention the effect that stadium seating (and all the additional surfaces) tends to have on sound quality (or lack thereof).

Having said all of this, I'm not opposed to the _concept_ of stadium seating (which, BTW, dates back to the silent era!), but I haven't yet seen an implementation that I have liked.

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 07-07-2000, 11:51 PM:

The first stadium auditorium I remember seeing was back in the late seventies. We twined one of our theatres using a piggy back design (one screen downstairs and one in balcony.) The upstairs auditorium had 16" tiered seating with a 5-foot platform for each row of seats (enough leg room for Ian at 6'4".) Of course at the time we didn't call it stadium, we just thought it was kinda of cool and customers like the designed. We still operate this theater (Camelot Theater) and you can see a pic of this auditorium at www.ourshowtimes.com. This past year we took an existing seven plex that we built in 1980 and converted to all stadium seating and added four new screens. We used 12" risers in the retro auditoriums and 14" in the new with 48" platforms. I really can't image spending the extra money for platform seating with 4" risers, when you can achieve this on a slope floor. I think the whole selling point of stadium seating for customers is the unobstructed view and I think you need 12" risers for this. I do agree that the AMC design (18" risers) are to steep, especially in their larger 500+ houses. When you sit in the back of the auditoriums, you feel like you need a pair of binoculars to see the screen. Nothing personal if any AMC guys read this, but I think AMC does a lot of wacky things.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 07-08-2000, 12:15 AM:

Whoever designs auditoriums for AMC are obviously blind AND deaf. I've not seen an AMC stadium seating theatre yet that I felt was acceptable in presentation. This is not counting all of the film defects, but is only considering the equipment and architectural design. The stadium is way too steep. The stupid curved screens distort the picture even more than the almost straight down projection angle. The screen sits below you which is uncomfortable to look at. And the sound is just plain horrid.

The hybrid idea is a good one. Just don't make the stadium part too steep. Stick with 6 inch risers. That will help your sound too. Stadium seating definitely affects sound quality.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-08-2000, 02:47 AM:

Actually Ian I have seen pictures of theaters overseas where many of the auditoriums are steep slope in the front half and shallow stadium in the back half, with the continental style setup. The problem as I understand it here in the US is that the wheelchair thugs are afraid of the steep slope. Apparently they fear taking off at 72 MPH and smashing into the screen.

I myslelf prefer steep slope with offsetting seating as opposed to stadium style. It was Century who started the whold stadium style in the first place, about 60 years ago. Trust me, the whole stadium thing will go away in a few years, its just a fad.

Dave

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 07-08-2000, 11:13 PM:

Dave:

Stadium theatres have been around since the mid twenties at least. We had, and still have several in our neck of the woods that date from that period. I could name at least fifty stadium theatres built between 1925 and 1930 across the nation, and I'm sure there were many more then that.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-09-2000, 05:58 AM:

Great Richard, you had to blow my high! Actually I was just trying to delude myself so I don't have to spend the money to put in stadium seating. It has its benefits, however I still prefer a good slope. From an insurance standpoint, you have less chance of someone tripping, but a greater chance of getting a speeding ticket going to the front row.

Dave

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 07-18-2000, 03:38 AM:

Regardless of what is felt on the topic - Stadium Seating is the one thing that brings customers into a theater. I was working at a 10-screen theater in Overland Park, KS (suburbof KC) that went from 1 million + in attendance/year to about 80,000 in less than 2 years (it closed August 15, 1999). The one reason - 2 AMC megaplexes (30-screen 3 miles west, and a 20-screen 1 mile east). If you don't have stadium seating in Kansas City, you don't turn a profit - bottom line.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 07-21-2000, 01:04 PM:

Mike, which theatre did you work at? I assume you are talking about the AMC Studio 30 , but what's was the 20 plex? Unfortunately for Kansas City, AMC rules the show. Their auditorium deisgn leaves much to be desired in my book.

These days the best places (in my book) to go are the Dickinson's and the Station Casino 18 (Regel, built by ACT III).

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 07-22-2000, 02:16 AM:

I was working at Cinemark Movies 10 (119th and Metcalf, Rosana Square). The 20-screen is the AMC Town Center 20. I agree with you on Dickinson having good presentation, but have you been to either of the Cinemarks in town? The Cinemark 20 in Merriam is nice, but the Palace (on the Plaza) is the most beautiful theatre I've ever seen. They transferred me their as an Assistant after they closed Movies 10, now I run Movies 8 in Mankato, MN for them.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2000, 09:09 AM:

Stadium seating is really just a fad right now. We have a customer that does half stadium, and half sloped floor. That covers everyones likes and dislikes. What will really happen is that insurance companies will finally force an end to stadium seating and all tha big chains will have to close their theaters or rip it all out and install a standard slope floor. Stadium seating is great for basketball, baseball, or hockey films though.Makes you feel right at home.

Mark

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 07-22-2000, 10:59 PM:

I disagree with the insurance issue. The Park Place retro-fit brought additional aisle illumination (Perm-Light) as well as handrails into the picture (insurance types just luvs them handrails!) The floor is completely visible even when the house lights are out.

The stadium configuration is also obviously impressive to patrons as they enter the auditoriums. When coupled with SRD and lots of QSC poweramps, these auditoriums quickly remind the patron that they are in the presense of something that they cannot get at home (unless they are related to Bill Gates *grin*).

I really don't think it's a fad either. It places allot of people in front of a screen without making them feel as if we crammed them in there.

Russ

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 07-24-2000, 06:11 PM:

Mike, I've been to the Cinemark 20 and it is nice. I haven't made it to the Palace yet, but everything I hear about it is that it's wonderful. Of course being on the Plaza I am sure that was a requirement of getting the location.

What I really don't like about stadium seating is when the surrounds don't follow the slope of the seating. By the time you get to the ground level the surrounds are a mile high, like anyone can hear them then.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-24-2000, 10:19 PM:

Stadium seating sucks, at least under the lighting conditions Regal imposes in this the Richmond Va. area. It is ALWAYS bright enough to read by. Very anoying, maybe they figure if the movie is bad you can read. Management claims it is because of insurance requirements. If this is the case, give me
something else.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-24-2000, 10:35 PM:

I have asked our customers that all have stadium seating about insurance claims. All said that they have double to triple the claims from patrons getting injured in stadium areas than they do in standard sloped floor theaters.
Mark

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 07-25-2000, 01:22 AM:

A representative from our insurance carrier who once visited another theatre that I was managing a long time ago explained the whole theatre concept to me.

Our insurance covers any injury sustained in the theatre, regardless of fault. If you run as fast as you can and ram your head into the wall, the insurance company will cover your stitches.

As far as theatre environments go, he explained that the first thing a person notices when entering a theatre from outside is "Damn!! It's dark in here!"

The way it was explained to me was that the customer entered an obvious dark place, noticed that it was dark, and then made the consious decision to press on.

Theatres, by nature, have been dark places throughout history.

According to him, claims are simply what the word implies. Unless there is obvious negligence and disregard for safety involved on the part of the theatre, the the award will be free stitches.

I am only one year into my stadium experience, but as of yet, there have been no injuries.

Lawyers!! There handy dealing with ex-wives, but if ya give 'em too much power, all forms of recreation and entertainment will cease to exist!

We need to re-introduce common sense into the public school system!

As a child, if I went home and told my mother that I was injured falling from a neighbor's tree, her first question would have been "What the Hell were you doing in the neighbor's tree to start with!"

Today, I fear her first question would be "Did you damage the tree?"

Russ

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-25-2000, 12:40 PM:

Hey Russ,

Actually the response would be, "was it johnsons tree? Cuz you know he has lots of money, and faulty trees!"

True story, there is this theater here in salt lake that is now closed. reason? A large woman, about 385 pounds according to court records, wedged herself into a theater seat. She then, according to witnesses, began to rock the seat, and these were not recliners. After about an hour of this, the seat broke and she flew backwards into the people behind her. The patrons that had this behemoth crash on them were furious. They understood this was the work of an overly weighty person, and NOT the fault of the theater itself. They testified in court on the theaters behalf. The LARGE WOMAN sued for pain and suffering. SHE WON!! $385 THOUSAND DOLLARS!!! FOR BIENG WAY TOO BIG FOR THE SEATS!!!

Cant we put up signs that politely say that if you must wedge into a seat, it probably is too small for you? MAybe you should rethink the extra butter on that popcorn?

Lawyers and insurance agents... biggest contributors to politicians... next to of course the dangerous chemicals companies...

dave

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 07-25-2000, 01:05 PM:

Hey! Thousand bucks a pound! I'm off to the donut shop!

------------------
Dave Bird

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-25-2000, 06:34 PM:

Hey Dave,
Which theater was that? Man, I'm off to the dounut shop right now.
Mark

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-26-2000, 03:40 AM:

I believe it was the olympus starship. After that they couldnt afford to keep it open, what with all the bad publicity and a seemingly larger population kept coming in the door, or at least tried to squeeze in anyway.

I could be wrong on the theater, but i believe that was the one.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 01-27-2001, 06:49 PM:

Ian, Was that theatre a Famous Players? That sounds exactly like them. I had an idea for an auditorium layout! It needs to be done on new construction, but it would have a lot of benefits! It kind of is like a sloping floor auditorium!

What you do is dig a big big pit into the ground and have the stadium seating start at ground level and go down! This way, there's no problems with anyone blocking the screen! It just might work!!!

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-27-2001, 07:37 PM:

No the first stadium seating theatre I saw was the Imax at the National Aeronautical & Space Museum at the Smithsonian.

I still like the idea of a hybrid theatre with stadium seating at the back and a slope in the front. That way you still get the handicap seats in the middle of the auditorium and you give the people a choice. P.S. One third of the movie going population are older people and they ain't getting any younger. They hate stadium seating.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 01-28-2001, 09:51 AM:

I was wandering about the stadium seating in the theatre where you walked down 5/6 rows and still blocked the screen. Was that a Famous Players?

Also, if i were to draw my ideal auditorium, could I mail it to anyone to get scanned into the computer?

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-28-2001, 12:48 PM:

No, it was the new 14-plex that was built in my town. It was built by a local man who runs the local cinema chain.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 01-29-2001, 08:41 AM:

The AMC Glen Lakes in Dallas has, I think, one theatre that had an incredibly steep stadium slope. Similar slope to the nose bleed sections at a baseball park.

Brad, Jason Burroughs, can you add anything about this one.

Paul.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-29-2001, 12:39 PM:

Paul,

I have not been to the the Glen Lakes in a very long time, but from what I recall the "stadium seating" section of their auditoriums are not any more steep than there other current stadium seating. They have this arrangement in only a few of their auditoriums, the back 1/3 is like stadium seating, the front 2/3 is fairly steeply sloped. Then the great big parabolic mic that they use for a screen is mounted pretty high as well.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 01-30-2001, 04:12 AM:

The theater that I work at kinda has a 50/50 split between the stadium seating & sloped floor. With the front half of the auditoriums having the sloped floor. It works out pretty well for us.

As far as I know, we're the only theater in central Maine with that kind of seating set up. *makes a mental note to bring her digital camera with her to work*

~GLB

------------------
In some cultures, what I do is considered normal.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-02-2001, 11:55 AM:

Gracia has a good point. UA Union Square (New York) has auditoriums that are stadium in the back and sloped in the front. Also has the most comfortable seats for any theater I've ever been in -- plush, reclining, movable armrest

The tradeoff is that there's only one center aisle in the stadium section and one center aisle in the sloped section

Posted by Jonathan Haglund (Member # 807) on 06-03-2001, 03:27 AM:

So what's the concessous? (sp?)

If you could build an auditorium or more of your own, what would be the best design?

Not that I'm planning on rebuilding any old abandoned auditoriums, no, not me

-Jonathan

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-03-2001, 07:59 PM:

I can't honestly believe anyone prefers slope over stadium. Insurance is phooey. We've never had anyone injure themselves on stadium any more than did slip on pop that was spilt 15 rows higher up the slope. The fact is, stadium gives you a better view. Period. Everything else needs to be adjusted accordingly (light, sound, etc.), but there is no way stadium is a fad, because the theatre industry decides what the fads are, so if they want it to stay, it'll stay.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-03-2001, 09:12 PM:

As a customer, I can definitely say that I prefer stadium seating to standard seating. I've been in far too many shows where someone's head blocked the view of part of the screen in standard auditoriums. I tend to avoid going to showings in auditoriums with standard seating unless I know there will not be many people there.

The stadium seating auditoriums in my area have fairly steep slopes, which limits the depth that the stadium seating section can have. All stadium auditorums in my area have standard seating sections in the front of the stadium sections because the depth of the stadium section is limited by the slope.

I've often wondered why older standard auditoriums, when converted to stadium seating, are not converted to a stadium style with less of a rise from one row to the next. The rise in most stadium auditoriums in my area is about a foot per row. I visited one theatre, the Shady Brooks Cinemas in Columbia, TN, and in the stadium auditoriums, the slope was less (about 6 or 8 inches per row). It wasn't quite enough to keep a tall person sitting in front of you from blocking a bit of the screen with the top of his head, but it was enough slope for 99 percent of the movies and audiences, where showings don't come close to selling out. In both showings I attended at this theatre, there were plenty of seats to choose with nobody in the seat directly in front. A smaller rise from row to row allows the stadium section to be much larger and allows deeper auditoriums.

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

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-03-2001, 10:06 PM:

Stadium vs slope....a never ending question.
I do cinemas in the U.S. and Foreign. Because of ADA and the need to get a reasonable amount of people into a set space, most stadium projects I work on in the U.S. tend to be split slope / stadium. Outside of the U.S. I am working on full stadium rooms which you enter from the front sides of the room and you go up. Full stadium rooms, if large, are unconfortable to watch the bottom of an image since it tends to give some people nausea....especially if you are constantly reading sub-titles...... I have a competitor who designs some of his full stadium rooms with so steep a rake, I have seen people stumble upon entering from the top entrance.
Also it is safer and more natural for someone to negotiate a 9 - 12 inch step then a bunch of baby steps........
Richard Fowler
TVP-Miami
tvpmiami.com

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 06-04-2001, 12:52 PM:

I can honestly say that I PREFER sloped seating to stadium. I prefer to be looking up at my movie rather than down at it. I am on the taller side (6'3), so I don't have a problem seeing over people in front of me.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-04-2001, 05:33 PM:

For every tall person who has no trouble seeing over people in front of them, there will be several seats behind them that are no good.

I still think that a stadium design with a less agressive slope from one row to the next is a good compromise between the two extremes.

One extreme is the auditoriums built in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Fairlane-Litchfield where one person's head can protrude into the screen area for people in seats many rows behind them. The screens are low and there isn't much slope.

The other extreme is the stadium design where each row is at least a foot higher then the one in front. A very short person can sit behind a tall person in that case with no head protrusion into the screen area. The problem is that the auditorium must be shallow or a section of standard seating must be in front of it. People in the back of the auditorium are above the screen center in some cases. Portholes must be higher (more keystoning).

With the middle ground (like Shady Brook Cinemas in Columbia, TN), a 6 to 8 inch rise per row works well in most cases. I wonder why the larger chains are not building auditoriums in this fashion. It seems to be a happy compromise.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-04-2001, 05:41 PM:

Put me down as one who honestly prefers _most_ sloped configurations to _most_ stadium configurations which I have seen. Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm not a fan of the typical implementations of the stadium concept.

Posted by Rachel Carter (Member # 693) on 06-05-2001, 12:31 AM:

I agree with Scott. I feel more comfortable in most slope settings. I am not particularly tall and I have had peoples heads get in the way of my view. But then again, I tend to sit closer to the front then the back so that makes a difference.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-05-2001, 09:43 AM:

Most of the "advantages" of stadium seating can be implemented in a conventionally sloped auditorium. Comfortable seats, plenty of legroom, and good sightlines are not unique to stadium designs. The steps (handicapped and elderly access), high projection angles (keystoning and illumination non-uniformity) and acoustic issues of steep stadium designs are challenging.

In a conventionally sloped auditorium, sightlines can be addressed by using optimized slope, staggered seating, greater row spacing, and raising the bottom of the screen, with reclining seats to allow comfortable viewing of the slightly higher screen.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 06-05-2001, 10:52 AM:

I would cast my vote with the raked floor over the stadium stating. Many theatres in New York were built with Both. Raked floors in the front part of the auditorium which usually had twenty to thirty rows of staggered seating and a stadium in the rear of the auditoriums which contained an additional ten to twenty rows. Access to the projection booths was to walk up the steps of the stadium.

Many of these auditoriums would have a slight bowl effect where the floor would slope down two thirds of the way and the start a gradual slope upward toward the screen area.

I have found that many of the older 55 + generation people who attend movies become dis-oriented while attending auditoriums with just stadium seats. The people of New York are fortunate in that we still have many
first run theatres that have sloped floors and these are usually single auditoriums or twins in addition to several multi-plexes that have the stadium seats.

Their are still a few that have both.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 06-05-2001, 12:35 PM:

I personally like stadium seating in AMC theaters. It seems that the concept has allowed AMC to provide a bigger screen for a given audience size. I hate shoe box type theaters that resulted from taking a single screen and making it a multi screen complex.

What I don't like with AMC are the seats they give some patrons down on the floor. These seats are way too close to the screen, plus you would have to angle your head back to see the picture. When I saw "Pearl Harbor", an usher plopped himself down on the front row in the far right seat. His head was blocking my view!!! That seat had to have been within 6 to 8 feet of the screen. What good is that? If the only seats available are down in front, I ask for my money back. It's just not worth it.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-08-2001, 08:11 PM:

Diehards love the properly configured slope seating, but the fact of the matter is that the audience wants an unobstructed view. Staggered seating by row is okay, but the little guy who ends up with the 6'5'' guy in front of him looks to shift right or left. That's okay, except when the house is full. Then what?

For those of you who have a combination of sloped and stadium seating, take a look out the port the next time your house is half full. See anyone sitting down front? I don't.

I originally thought safety would be a problem, but after a year and a half of running with stadium seating, we have not had a single accident to date.

I often think back to the college lectures in the old buildings that had stadium configurations (50's & 60's)and wonder why we all were not bright enough to come up with this concept sooner?

Figures don't lie. Just look what has happened to theaters without stadium seating when a competitor builds on top of them.

This is not a fad. When properly configured, stadium provides a superior venue, period. Take a look around ten years into the furure and see who has survived who
has gone belly-up.

Bottom line is fannies in the seats, guys and gals.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-08-2001, 10:47 PM:

Sorry to disagree but the numbers also don't lie in the matter of demographics
The baby boomer population seems to patronize the slopped floors more than the stadium.
And they are the only group that has had a net increase in moviegoing
10 years from now I think the slopped floors that survived will be the long term winners
Also to bear in mind is operational cost
Most locations charge higher rents in stadium floors are installed because of higher cost to remove if the tennent pulls out
Insurance is substanially higher
Heating and AC costs are higher due to the higher ceiling height causing a large increase in room volume
Higher construction costs amortization

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-16-2001, 04:20 PM:

Also....

Looking at the figures....when a new theatre moves into town it generally stomps all over the existing old theatre. Often the new theatre has more screens too....how can you say it is just the stadium seating?

As John said, a well designed sloped floor theatre can have all of the benefits of stadium but exhibitors just can't help themselves...gotta cram them all together.

People don't wan't obstructed vision, they don't care if it is stadium or sloped to achieve that...the perception is that stadium guarantees unobstructed vision....a falsehood in many theatres since hand rails are often in the way .

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-23-2001, 12:31 PM:

My first taste of stadium seating was the Loews New Brunswick (New Jersey) on New Year's Day 1997. First stadium theater in New Jersey -- and the first stadium theater in the New York metropolitan area! I saw The Crucible in one of the small (100-seat) halls and it looked like I was face-to-face with the actors.

I've gradually made the transition away from sloped seating to stadium seating. As of last October it's stadium seating for me or nothing -- and I'm in my mid-40s. It's a bit easier for me to say that with all the theaters that have opened in the past 2 1/2 years. That's one thing you can thank George Lucas for!

BTW, I have had no problem reading subtitles on subtitled movies in stadium theaters.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-23-2001, 12:39 PM:

Charles said: "That's one thing you can thank George Lucas for!"

How is George Lucas responsible for stadium seating? Many attribute the recent trend to stadium seating to AMC Theatres, or to Kinopolis in Europe. If you really go back, the ancient Greeks and Romans used it first.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-23-2001, 02:29 PM:

John P: Four stadium theaters opened in New Jersey in the 3 weeks leading up to Star Wars Episode 1. The closest theater to me -- a stadium -- opened 5 days before Episode 1. AMC opened New Jersey's biggest theater the same day as Episode 1.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-23-2001, 04:26 PM:

Summer 1999 was about the peak of the building boom for new multiplex stadium theatres. The lead time on designing and building a new complex is at least a year. So it's likely coincidence that your stadium theatres opened with "Phantom Menace".

Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 06-25-2001, 03:56 AM:

I cant believe i missed this stadium seating conversation....until now.....well on one hand i guess they give you and unsurpassable ammount of candy and popcorn storage space if architecturally designed properly. hehe......I say if its a gimmick to get people inside the door...go for it...were here to make money. I have been to many nice theaters all over which incoporate good lensing practices which are typically one of the things that the newer"stadium seating" binge is causing.....owners are trying to fill the entire wall with the picture having to cut corners on smpte rp-40 and illumination standards....one problem!! Acoustically, I have noticed that stadium auditoriums are more prone to room mode, standing waves, slap echoes, etc.... acoustically insulating these rooms is a bit more intricate etc etc. Acoustically these room can pay a price. Even Rattling I have noticed to be a problem as well. These cheaper materials and "efficient" assembly practices make for less sturdy platforms that are prone to rattling....many a tear has fallen off me face walking through an ausitorium hearing the buzz of metal and wood to pink noise comming out of my subwoofer! Provided that picture and sound aren't compromised i see nothing wrong with stadium seating.....heck even shorter people like me can see the entire screen despite the mammoth presence of the moviegoer in front of me.
Rory

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2001, 10:39 AM:

Rory -- the inadequate luminance (filling a 70-foot wall-to-wall screen with a 1.85:1 flat image), keystoning, acoustic issues, etc. are real design challenges that are not often met. Not to mention the safety and handicapped access issues.