O riginally we came here to criticize trailers," renowned film critic Roger Ebert told delegates attending the Wednesday afternoon event at ShoWest, "but the studios wouldn't give us [any] trailers."

A safe decision, it would seem, on the part of Hollywood. After all, while the trademark thumbs-up from the pair can mean extra box-office bucks for a given film, a much dreaded thumbs-down from the reviewers, most famous for their television program "At the Movies With Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper," can equally result in a notable downturn in interest for a particular release.

What Ebert and Roeper said they would offer instead to convention attendees were their opinions and suggestions as to the elements necessary to create the ideal moviegoing experience, or as Roeper phrased it, what would go into the "Ebert and Roeper multiplex."

"Sometimes it's disheartening that the worse thing about the experience is the [actual] movie," said Ebert.

I ronically, though the afternoon's proceedings had been dubbed "Ten Things We Love About the Movie Theatre," Ebert and Roeper's sharp wit and cutting remarks were more appropriate to a list of "Things We Hate About the Cinema." However, that same criticism that had been so feared by the studios was so engagingly and humorously delivered that many exhibitors in the audience felt the event to be the highlight of the entire convention.

Roeper's first targets were the lighting and climate control of theatre auditoriums. He noted that sometimes auditorium lighting had not been dimmed enough, interfering with the audience's ability to see the onscreen picture, while the air conditioning always seemed to be cranked to its coldest setting. "We're not slabs of meat," he joked.

For Ebert, the disappearance of the nation's movie palaces and glorious single-screeners is one of the major tragedies of today's exhibition business. "Save the really big screen," he urged ShoWest delegates. Noting that he understood that the lack of business driven to a theatre with just one auditorium was a major factor in their demise, he underscored the true pleasure of viewing a film on an immense screen. "Around the country, really big screens are being lost," he remarked.

Also on the two critics' list of changes to be made in an ideal world was the idea of senior staff members always being present at a theatre. "I would like to see a higher level of staff, in terms of managers that are there," said Roeper. "On a serious note, if someone in a theatre's acting up, it would be nice if someone [with a level of authority] was there...so that you don't have to act as your own cop."

Ebert added that an experienced or senior-level employee would also be more likely to understand problems that sometimes arise regarding the quality of screen presentation. "I get letters complaining about the boom mic [being visible during a film screening]," he said. "It would be nice if [staff members] who know what 'framing' means are onsite."

A dditionally, Ebert took the very unique stance of advising theatre operators, "I'm going to ask you not to rush headlong into digital cinema." As the first voice in a long time at any exhibition convention to come out supporting celluloid over digital projection, he stated, "Hollywood has not spent one dime studying...how digital images enter the human mind."

"There's a theory that people enter a hypnotic state when watching video," he explained. "It gives a different experience [than watching film]....When you replace celluloid, you may be giving [movie patrons] an experience that they didn't know they'd be getting."

Quite passionate about the issue, Ebert said that when the inevitable conversion to digital took place, people were "going to lose celluloid magic." What people would get instead, he insisted, were images that would be "cold, but technically perfect."

Other suggestions proposed by the two critics included ensuring that the projection bulb is turned up, as "diminishing it does not preserve the life of the bulb"; bringing back Saturday morning "kiddie shows," which Ebert believes "will get kids into a moviegoing habit in a good way"; and dedicating a few auditoriums in a multiscreener to art or specialty fare, or as Roeper described it, to put "the word 'mutli' into multiplex." "The same [major Hollywood release] plays over and over again [on different screens in the same theatre]," he observed. "We envisioned and hoped that there would be space for films like 'Memento.'"

Additional recommendations were implementing a "no kids policy" because, noted Roeper, "Sometimes parents can't be trusted not to bring kids" to films inappropriate for them to watch, and offering a healthier variety of concessions. "Is it possible to sell anything at the refreshment stand that won't kill?" asked Ebert.

Widely applauded by ShoWest delegates was Ebert's vocal abhorrence of cellular phones and his plea for "cell phone blocking" in theatre auditoriums.

Conventioneer enthusiasm for Ebert's suggestion, however, seems more theoretical than practical, as evinced by the countless Nokia and Motorola chimes that continue to ring at ShoWest events.

Tristan
 

I don't think that just because Roger Ebert says there are things wrong with the presentation at a lot of theatres that there will be a huge change in the way companies do business. I do not feel reassured in the least as the companies know their operators are not properly trained and that there are problems in the booth. I don't mean to be a downer, but I just don't see Mr. Ebert causing much of a change at all.
 

-Tristan
 

I think offering healthy alternatives would be bold and daring, but there was a time when offering coffee and cheesecake were the same daring move, but now it is becoming commonplace.

Thats my opinion, and im sticking to it, because I spilled my coke on the floor and my feet are stuck. Damn Utah Jazz losing to the Knicks of all teams. I mean really, couldnt the damn usher figure out what row 13 means? I said row 13 is where my coke spilled, and she mopped row 12. Did she not see me? I waved, I yelled, and still, she mopped a dry floor, leaving me in my own liquid sticky coke mess. ANd the jazz LOST.

Dave
 

I have been to many theaters where they dim the lights just enough to give the impression that they darkened the theater, but you can still see the liver spots on an old mans hands from twenty feet away. I want to see the movie.

It can be totally disorienting to have a pitch black theater while watching a movie, in fact in can be painful to many movie goers. Aisle lighting is not nearly enough, and if it is too high, you can land an airplane in there.

Many movie theaters keep it pitch black in order to not have to worry about having bright enough bulbs running, or having a clean screen.

I always kept my light up JUST BARELY, only enough to let you see that YES there are seats and YES there is a way out. BUT NEVER bright enough to see if the person you are sitting next to is wearing clothes or not.

Dave
 

Kickass!!
 

Dave
 

I recall that Brad and a few others have found overhead lighting during the show to be distracting for those wearing eyeglasses, as you often get reflections of the overhead lights in the lenses.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Ebert wants the theater chains to hold on to "movie palaces and glorious single-screeners". The only way a 1,000-seat theater can survive today is to have an area exclusive. In NYC Monsoon Wedding is in the Paris Theatre but not the Loews Lincoln Square or AMC Empire. Reason: The Paris has an exclusive for Manhattan north of 34th Street on whatever picture it's playing. The Loews Lincoln Square and AMC Empire could not get Amelie until that film was out of the Paris.

Ebert wants theaters to bring back Saturday morning "kiddie shows". Sorry! Kids have too many planned activities these days and something like that will just not fly. OTOH a theater can do well with family fare if you court families yet not pander to them. The theater I usually go to, the Reading Cinemas in Manville NJ, is a 12-plex that goes all-out to get movies with kid appeal. I saw Big Fat Liar there in its 4th weekend on a Saturday matinee (4:30) in a medium-large hall that was 2/3 full.

Roeper wants all mutliplexes to set aside "a few auditoriums ... to art or specialty fare". I would love to see the Regal Commerce Center in North Brunswick NJ get more aggressive on upmarket/arthouse product. That way Regal can counterprogram the Loews New Brunswick and tap into the Rutgers University community. However, this particular Regal often four-walls at least 1 screen for Bollywood product. Any time that happens Regal loses out on pictures like Ghost World, Mulholland Drive, or Amelie. In fact, Regal will four-wall a screen for a Bollywood film again this weekend and thus will not get to open Harrison's Flowers.

A "no kids policy"? Ebert and Roeper have never been to an AMC.

A "healthier variety of concessions"? Some road kill will do, thank you.
 

I'm sure there are people who will disagree and I know there are many theaters that don't have side wall lighting, but hey, that's why I don't visit your theater! In an area where there is another theater not too far away that extinguishes the ceiling lights, you are probably losing a good amount of your business to them without even realizing it. Theaters go out of their way to install elevators and ramps and hearing impaired devices and other "handicap accessible" features in their complexes, but people who wear glasses (the most common of all "handicaps") are ok to forget about??? If your theater has ceiling lighting and wall lighting, your tech could remedy this in just a few minutes per screen. Something to think about.

Most theaters use a light that is very strong, bright, "in your face". Compare to halogens etc. It is very obtrusive. When I had my overheads, we used a very soft, frosted light, very low levels. The frosted incandescent light will not reflect at low levels onto glasses or the screen, and only points out that yes you do have a cieling.

I have been at theaters where the overheads were on very softly, but the light is a dimmed halogen, straight up. It hurts to have on even in the corner of your eyes. Notice that the wall lights are usually frosted incandescent lighting.

Too many theaters CUT corners on this by using the overheads as Cleaning lights as well as ambient lighting.

You should not be able to see the floor when ANY of the lights are on, but you should be able to see only SIHLOETTES (SIC) of seats, people, etc.

Dave
 

Aisle lighting. Use high hat fixtures directly over the aisles. Install "ER" (ellipsoidal reflector) or small 50 watt "spot" bulbs. Set the dimmers on low during the show. The light will pool on the aisle only without being a problem for glasses wearers even if they are near the aisles.

The "hat" on some fixtures is designed to have the front surface of the lamp at ceiling level. This is NOT what you want. The lamps in theatre ceiling lights must be recessed to eliminate glare.

Bullet fixtures are another solution. You do the web search.

Too many theatre managers and execs buy lamps that are wide dispersion "R" or "flood" lamps. Dumb, lazy, dumb. <grumble.>