Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When presentation DOESN'T matter

This is topic When presentation DOESN'T matter 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=000458

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 02-20-2002, 12:24 AM:

Consider this scenario. Two companies have 12 screens each in a competitive market, which means that they basically split the A movies 50/50. One company's theatres are in TERRIBLE shape, not to mention (and I kid you not when I say this) that they have AT LEAST 2 or 3 shows a week go down. They don't start in frame, they jump out because of incorrect splices, they are consistently out of focus, the sound is notorious for randomly dropping out, and when a show goes down, they can't get it started again so they pass out refund passes with no apology. The people in the city KNOW what they're in for when they walk in the door of these theatres...but guess what? They keep going because this company is going to get 1/2 of the A movies no matter how terrible they are. This ridiculous "competitive" market is hurting the customers. Sure, they don't have to go to the bad theatres (which would actually be the smart thing to do because it would eventually drive them out of business). However, we all know that if you get the big movies, you're going to stay in business on that principle alone.

And you know, I don't think the studios care. It seems to me that you would want your big releases shown under the best circumstances possible. But the fact of the matter is that in this market, if you own sub-par theatres, you'll still get the movies because that's the rules.

It's a shame.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2002, 12:57 AM:

This has been brought up before and I think the general consensus here on the forums is that it would definitely be better to let any theater play a given film, rather than to split product. What you said is really the bottom line. Those theaters that have not been kept up, have poor management/staff, and a lousy presentation will simply fold and the remaining theaters will be about quality.

Posted by Jim Casterioto (Member # 1155) on 02-20-2002, 07:21 AM:

I could not agree with you more Brent, the theater I work at receives about 75% of the new releases. The competition only stays in business because once out of every three or four months they receive the one big film, i.e. Titanic, Star Wars, Pearl Harbor. Customers in the area bash this theater, and always wish that we show every movie that comes out, and it is difficult to explain to them that is out of our hands.

Does anyone know of a specific rule preventing one theater from showing a movie? My impression is that there has to be a ten mile radius between two theaters.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 02-20-2002, 08:29 AM:

Did anyone see the latest Boxoffice Magazine?? I got mine in the mail yesterday, and they have a section in the magazine which lets readers respond to previous articles and "letters to the editor".

One of the letters this month came from a guy in the Hollywood / L.A. area who was responding to a side-by-side comaparison of digital vs. film. The movie they were comparing was run with alternating reels switching between digital & 35mm. He summed up his response by saying, "sure the digital presentation on the 55 foot screen showed digital artifacts, the colors were washed out in certain areas, and some of the items looked like a bad duped VHS tape, with the current state of projection and presentation in todays theatres, the average movie going public won't be able to tell the difference or just won't care".

If anyone has seen it, I be interested in your response as well. He basically said, "So what if it sucks, film does too."

------------------
Barry Floyd
Floyd Entertainment Group
Nashville, Tennessee
(Drive-In Theatre - Start-Up)

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-20-2002, 11:27 AM:

Five miles is the usual radius for split requests. I absolutely believe in splitting product, as it is the only way to keep the Wal-marts of exhibiton from killing off independents.

Posted by Zach Zagar (Member # 379) on 02-20-2002, 12:32 PM:

I think the giants kill off independants just as easily with split booking. For instance...

"Oh you wanna open a theater across the street from me and offer better customer service? I'll show you..."

"Hi this is Mr. AMC Carmikeregalgeneral, and if you give any product to the guy across the street, we will not play your product in markets where we are the only theater."

I think the new guy should use their uncorporate hands, that are not tied, to use the best possible customer service. Sometimes the chains can tie your hands by old policy that is outdated, while a smaller chain, or a single theater, alone, has ability to change rather quickly, as well as tend to give a little more touch of personality when dealing with their customers.

I think direct competition would eliminate the inferior theaters, the theaters we don't want to go to. Granted, there will be some indys that shouldn't be open either, and also, chain doesn't equal bad in all cases, they're just under a bigger microscope.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-20-2002, 12:55 PM:

quote:
Consider this scenario. Two companies have 12 screens each in a competitive market, which means that they basically split the A movies 50/50. One company's theatres are in TERRIBLE shape,

This sounds just like Decatur, AL, where the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 has exceptional presentation quality and the Carmike Century Cinema 8 has had poor presentation quality for years, but both theatres do about the same amount of business because they each get 50 percent of the movies. Csrmike really has no incentive to improve their presentation quality, except to avoid negative articles in the Decatur Daily when things get too bad. If both theatres could show the same movies, the Carmike would go out of business quickly. A major problem with allowing theatres to show the same movies in the same region would be that each theatre would have to have more screens. For example, Decatur has 16 screens, with (mostly) different movies. If each 8-plex could show the same movies, there would probably not be many more than 8 movies playing in Decatur at any time, so selection would not be as good for moviegoers.

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-20-2002, 01:06 PM:

Barry Floyd said: "If anyone has seen it, I be interested in your response as well. He basically said, "So what if it sucks, film does too."

Mediocrity should NOT be an excuse for more mediocrity.

IMHO, "Film Done Right" can easily deliver quality superior to any Digital Cinema system available today. Almost every "problem" layed at the door of film presentation can be traced to unreasonable cost-cutting, or not using the tools available today to maintain quality images for hundreds of showings. I would venture to say the "problem" theatres don't use film cleaners, have minimal or non-existant maintenance, and expect miracles from under-trained, unmotivated, and poorly supervised booth personnel.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-20-2002, 01:22 PM:

If perfect digital looks like bad film presentation, then I just have to wonder what a bad digital presentation would look like? THe same people who are too lazy to focus a film are going to be too lazy to focus the DLP too...

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-20-2002, 01:40 PM:

Zach wrote: "Hi this is Mr. AMC Carmikeregalgeneral, and if you give any product to the guy across the street, we will not play your product in markets where we are the only theater."

It just doesn't work this way. There was an independent a few years ago who took a larger chain to court over non-competetive practices, won big time, and used a lot of the money to improve his theatres and build more. Any independent with a brain just needs to respond to a loss of the split with threat of legal action.

There are always subtle games that are played, but never anything as obvious as what you suggest.

Although I don't know the individual situation, the problem as described in Huntsville, may occur because of something like this:

A lease entered into under certain good economic conditions demands that the new theatre must stay open even if the business to justify it isn't there. This allows the landlord certain benefits, such as leasing surrounding parcels with that guarantee of at least some traffic flow, reduced danger of a "dead" mall, insurance against damage, etc. The theatre circuit must agree to the terms to get the space and not lose it to a competitor.

If the theatre owner has other locations under the same corporate banner, he can't close that theatre when it starts losing money. This was a major problem with many of the circuits prior to the bankruptcy proceedings.

In contrast, an independent will go out of business at a negative cash flow theatre, as a fluid free market economy would normally demand.

The problem translates to the public as a circuit theatre that has no money for maintenance or even day-to-day costs. The primary incentive of the circuit is to minimize the financial bleeding. Getting a popular film brings in more cash at no added outlay, so booking goes on as normal, while all other expenses are chopped to the bone.

Incentives for improvement can also be blocked by other factors. The last year of a lease may dictate no phyical improvements. Wage limitations (often based on a theatre's performance) may dictate lesser quality managers be used at the location. There are many other possibilities.

Split booking and cash-loss theatres are really two different issues. If anything should be made illegal, it is the "must operate" clause in leases that should be banned.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-20-2002, 02:54 PM:

Short and sweet what it boils down to is that the film companies don't want one good theatre in any town. They would prefer two good theatres, but one good and one poor, or two poor, will do just as well. If poor presentation began affecting bookings you wouldn't see a mass revival of independants like some of you may think. Independant theatres can have just as shitty-or sometimes worse-presentation than chain theatres. Instead, the big boys would quickly sit up and take notice, and we'd see a return to good presentation. This in turn would get them all the product and create a lot of single chain markets. Then the theaory that spurred the building spree would actually come true-big chains could use their sole control of large numbers of makrets to negotiate better terms. "No, Mr. Lucas, if you do not give us 75/25 on Episode 2 your film won't play to 1/3 of the secondary markets in the country." The film companies will never let this happen.

Posted by John Gordon (Member # 523) on 02-20-2002, 03:44 PM:

Barry,
For more info on the film vs. digital, check out the thread "Film vs. Digital Projection" in this forum.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-20-2002, 04:45 PM:

Anytime you have a paying customer, presentation ALWAYS matters......

If you are training projectionists, and you are using scrap previews or other stuff, then have a ball. Chances are, when you run your projectionists through an obsticle course like I do, you come equipped with a pair of scissors, club-feet, and anything else to make their day miserable...

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 02-20-2002, 07:37 PM:

I concur. Presentation always matters. I work in a zone where a theatre plays day and date with us on everything (they are 1.3 miles away). We win in the presentation part. People that I have spoke to say that we have a better picture and better sound. However, as with anything else - they won't tell you unless you ask. The one trend I have noticed in the past five years is that people care less about presentation overall. The only time I hear about it is when the competition really messes up and the customers show up here to see the movie (because their projector is down - or an electrical problem.) Of course, we accept their emergency tickets.........

------------------
"Running through life at 24 frames per second"

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-20-2002, 08:20 PM:

Competitive markets - gotta love em.

I was in a 50-50 product quanity and quality split for awhile (except for Universal). This is where you benefit from having a good booker that can shmooze and make deals, and try to catch the other company's booker asleep at the wheel (or not paying close attention to that particular market). Let's examine the 2001 Universal allocations for this location.

My theater: The Mummy Returns; The Fast & the Furious; Jurassic Park III; K-PAX; Spy Game; A Beautiful Mind.

Competition: Head Over Heels; Josie and the Pussycats; American Pie 2; Captain Corelli's Mandolin; The Musketeer.

Seem like a 50-50 split to you? This is in an 8-screen vs 8-screen market!

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 02-21-2002, 10:17 AM:

The big difference between an independent and a chain though is that independants have to have a competitive advantage "clean theatres and excellent presentation" to stay in business, it is usually the owner's livlihood at stake, In my experience (not syaing all mutiplexes, im sure there are many good ones out there) the multiplex chains I have seen shows at just dont seem to care for details and showing a quality presentaion, I know employees there dont have a personal stake in the business but damn, can't some people just do their jobs properly. Our theatre has been in business 61 years as a one screen independently owned theatre because we put quality presentation and cleanliness very high on our priorities.

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-21-2002, 12:15 PM:

Adam, the point of this thread though is that by the studios booking policies presentation ISN'T all that important. Oh sure, you'll do better business with better presentation, but you know the saying-If you have it they will come. The local independent does NOT clean their theatres between shows-in fact they have the shows cued to turn the lights all the way up at the beginning of the credits so they can get the next crowd in there right away. They have 5 minute intermissions on average. They always start their movies out of frame, and almost every print they get is scratched by the end of its first week. Yet they continue to be able to book enough big movies to stay in business confortably.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 02-21-2002, 07:15 PM:

Really, you don't want two theatres in the same market playing day-and-date, because unless there's MAJOR problems with one of them (which really is rare, let's be honest), people honestly don't notice or care. I sit next to my wife at a competitive theatre shifting in my seat uncomfortably because of a shutter ghost or the picture not being in frame, and she doesn't notice. I know that she represents more of the general public than I do, because a couple times we've had a problem go on for 15 minutes and no customer in the theatre has noticed. Truth is, have a great presentation for your own pride, and for the 5% that notice, but most things aren't going to make a person go out of the way to a theatre across town.

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

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 02-25-2002, 12:36 AM:

My frustration stems from the fact that I put hours and hours into making my presentation as good as it can possibly be with the resources at my disposal. I've studied every damn article and post on this site. I have become obsessed with film done right. And I have been successful. But what if I woke up one day and said, "You know, I really don't HAVE to do this. One way or the other, we're splitting product...so screw it!!" What if I started everything a little out of frame and a little out of focus? What if I didn't clean my plates and just left the dirt down the sides of the screen? Nobody cares, right?

Wrong. I care. I care SO MUCH that I get discouraged when we lose something big to the place across town, and then I run into no less than 10 people who say, "We went to see <insert any A movie we didn't get> and the sound cut out for a few minutes at the best part," or "They said the print was messed up and they cancelled the 7's and the 9's."

But they keep going back. So, if it's true that people DON'T care about presentation...then why should I?

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-25-2002, 09:16 AM:

"But they keep going back. So, if it's true that people DON'T care about presentation...then why should I?"

There comes a point when most people doing above average work ask themselves this very question. There are a few answers.

1. The few people that do care will notice your efforts and be appreciative.
2. There is the possibility that someone who notices may be in a position to offer better employment.
3. Reputations have a way of following people and a bad reputation may stymie a chance at a great job down the road.
4. Bad habits are hard to break and it is easier not to get into bad habits.
5. You do it for your own personal satisfaction.
6. (Rarely considered these days) If there is an ultimate judgement based on deeds, you want to provide every reason to open those pearly gates.
7. There simply is no other way that you can comprehend doing your work.
8. You are totally insane and a work-a-holic.
9. Being a called a film geek is the highest form of flattery to you.
10. It is all a dream and you are really working at McDonalds and just don't want to wake up.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-25-2002, 09:39 AM:

quote:
1. The few people that do care will notice your efforts and be appreciative.

Since I feel like I'm one of the few customers that recognizes consistently good presentation quality, I make sure I let the managers and staff members of the theatres that have good presentation quality know that I notice, just so they'll know that their efforts are not in vain. Heck, if they're good enough, I'll put a list of compliments in the description file for their theatre on my WWW site, like I did for Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, AL, just so everyone who uses my site will learn more about how to recognize better presentation quality.

I think this theatre-rating thing I do has caused me to notice quality of service at many other types of businesses as well. One example is restaurant service. I find myself giving tips that are much better than average when the food and service are good, just to show my appreciation.

What if the projector operators worked for tips?

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

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 02-25-2002, 10:20 AM:

Have you ever said to a waiter, "My compliments to the chef?"
At group dinners or banquets I've seen the chef called out to applause,and sometimes he/she calls out the staff to share the compliment.
I've had managers thank me for running a good show, when called for relief or emergency work. And once when showing a program gratis at a Veterans'Hall, two young women from Germany came up to me as I was rewinding to thank me for my efforts.
In the "early" days it was a common courtesy to thank "the Professor"
for his efforts as showman.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-25-2002, 11:27 AM:

When I was running the Brenkert Carbon Arc Booth in the station theater I didn't know I was being watched by a union business agent who was sitting in the auditorium watching my presentation.

Apparently, he liked the way my show (You notice I said MY SHOW) went and how I presented it. In a couple of months, I was a union member. I was still allowed to run that booth while holding the card.

Thought I would come back and say we were paid 5 bucks a show. This not only included on-screen time, but prep time which included a full film inspection IAW military standards, as well as equipment cleaning and preparation.

Crappy wage? Sure. But we were professionals, and we enjoyed what we were doing.