quote:

---

-- 87% wide screen

---

That alone makes be wonder how good this "survey" is. Aspect ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 (with very rare exceptions these days) and there is no flexibility of how wide a screen is in relation to its height if movies are shown properly. This survey makes it sound as if cropping the top and bottom and showing movies at too wide a ratio would draw more people to theatres (for example, showing flat at 2.00:1 and scope at 2.50:1). BAH!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2003, 02:10 PM:
 
I don't interpret it that way at all. I think so long as the screen is "wide" the customers are happy. (IE-the screen size is as big as it could be for the auditorium.) Remember, most customers are idiots and wouldn't understand aspect ratio if you spent a month explaining it to them. These are the same people that don't understand why all of the speakers do not play all of the time during a movie.

Someone needs to show this to the pencil pushers so they can stop spending so much money on the lobby and fix their presentations. I've been saying it for years, customers are in the auditorium watching the movie for 10 times longer than they are in the pretty lobby.
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 05-31-2003, 02:32 PM:
 
I would have to agree with Brad, most customers don’t have any idea about aspect ratios. What you hear from most customers is “Is it playing on the big screen” whether it’s scope or flat. I like the idea that image quality and cleanliness is high on the list, two of the things I always bitch about.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2003, 02:36 PM:
 
That reminds me of my favorite customer. True story:

The guy calls up and wants to know if we will be running whatever movie on our 70mm sized screen. I told him "oh no, our screen is MUCH bigger than that!" (I didn't feel like I was lying to the guy since it was in the 70mm capable auditorium with the biggest screen in the complex.)
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-31-2003, 02:39 PM:
 
I'm assuming that this is a multiple-choice survey, where customers could choose multiple items. Unfortunately, they left out the one reason which really matters to most poeple: "most conveniently located theatre that was showing the movie that I wanted to see."

From what I can tell, convenient theatre location is what drives most movie-going decisions. Sure, most people will stay away from a known dump, but otherwise they will usually go to the nearest theatre (or only theatre in their area) as long as it has the programming that they want.

Obviously, everyone wants good picture and sound quality (even though many don't know what "presentation quality" really is), but they won't usually go out of their way except to avoid the worst offenders.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-31-2003, 03:42 PM:
 
I always call and ask at what time(s) the movie I want to see will be showing on the "largest screen." Mainly because at the 20 and 22 plex they have 8 or 9 prints of any given move and a few are bound to end up in the 75-seat storage closets.

Example: AMC Pleasure Island 24 has Finding Nemo in the DLP house, the largest film house (balcony! ), a medium house, and a pathetic little "screening room" tucked away in the back corner. BEWARE of Auditorium 22!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-31-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
Our local monthly magazine (cleverly called COLUMBUS MONTHLY), just released their list of the "Best" theatres. They pretty much rated the quality of the seats and little else.

They actually seemed to rate theatres in the order of the list above with the exception of picture quality.

Some specific mentions were made of sound quality (mostly nonsensical) and nothing was made of picture quality. The theatre I like best was rated low because it "looked older than its 5 years". They also liked another theater because it has a Dippin'Dots machine.

They did rate as No. 1 our lonely and superb 8-plex located downtown. All THX with management that cares. Unfortunately for them, I can almost always get a good seat easily because it is never busy. I drive past a jammed 24-plex parking lot to get there.

It sure is a strange business.

BTW, there is a VERY nice mention of Kara McVey and the Strand, concerning her efforts to book movies in a competitive zone.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 05-31-2003, 04:27 PM:
 
Brad, you gave the smart answer...I always make the mistake of trying to educate the public and in the end they think I'm just bullshitting them. Like when I explain why the scope picture is bigger than the 70mm picture...especially to the guy who was outraged that we "had the masking pulled in for our 70mm presentation of Lawrence!".

Oh there was the woman who had a screening tape of Baraka who called me after seeing that film in the theatre I where I worked. She tried to rip me a new one over the phone because she thought that we cut the top and the bottom of the picture off because it's "completely square on my t.v." and why would we crop such a beautiful film? (It didn't help we had top/bottom masking that came in after the flat trailers.) When I started to explain ratios and t.v. cropping the old hag hung up on me and I'm sure if my wish came true, she's burning in hell right now.

Then there's floorstaff. Few, if any of them understand what to be looking/listening for when doing theatre checks. I've got a great staff but explaining it to them is like talking to a brick wall. It's like explaining that THX is not a digital system to people.

My partner, bless his little heart, still doesn't see the difference between film and video. He doesn't hear the difference between good and bad sound. We went to see Gladiator in Marina Del Rey - it was a gawd-awful presentation but he couldn't tell. He never noticed the scratches or heard it switch in and out of digital. I thought it was due to his lack of exposure to quality as he listens to his c.d.'s on his computer and has an old t.v. So I took him to the 70mm screenings of 2001 & Lawrence - but he still doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. If the theatre doesn't stink it doesn't matter what the presentation is like - as long as they show movies he wants to see.

Just last Sunday an acoustical tile fell in the booth of my theatre during the trailers and landed on the film as it fed to the platter. The entire print of Winged Migration was scratched and it was like watching a film through a cage. As it was the holiday weekend we did not get a new print until Wednesday. NOBODY COMPLAINED! I just wish my assistants had put a note up in the box office so people won't judge our theatre by that experience...but I'm beginning to doubt they noticed.

I'm also thinking people equate art films with crappy presentations - at least around here. I've yet to see a decent show at our competitors.

Final thought:

Most people don't notice and most of those who do notice don't know what they're talking about. None of which will stop me from trying to put on the best show that I can.
 

---

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 05-31-2003, 04:32 PM:
 
Because we have taken a single screen theater and converted it into a six-plex, we have 4 houses on the main floor, one is a small climb of about 6 stairs plus the "stadium", and the other is way up at the top in the original balcony. Customers know that rarely will we bring in a movie that is higher than the main floor during its first 2 weeks, and "hot" movies will be in one of the 3 houses with digital sound. As the movie ages, however, it is moved into some of the more basic houses, or "up the tower" as we like to refer to it - giving the customers an incentive to watch it one of the first 2 weeks it is playing, or risk climbing 5 or 6 flights of stairs to see it in the nosebleed auditorium. We have had customers call and ask if a movie was up there or not, and I recall as a customer always bitching when I had to go see a movie up there. That is the one auditorium where we don't bitch at customers who have their feet on the seats, as the rows are so close together there is no legroom. My preferred posture in that room is to put my feet on the armrests of the seat in front of me - that is almost perfect alignment and very comfortable.

So I would think customers would be concerned with their overall comfort and inconvenince as well. Everywhere you go someone is going to bitch about the concession prices, so that doesn't really matter much!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2003, 05:03 PM:
 
The Marcus Theatres survey doesn't mean squat. And if anything most of the respondents are just checking off items they know little to nothing about (such as "wide" wall to wall screens, aspect ratios, sound quality, projection quality, etc. etc. etc.).

The Wallace Theaters Cache 8 theater in my town is a clear illustration to the laziness of many movie customers. I firmly believe many people visit theaters based on whatever house is closest. That's it.

I feel like filling my pickup bed with small printed leaflets and dumping them in the Cache 8 parking lot. The leaftlets would say, "if you pay money to watch a movie in this place, you are a moron."

Of course, not all the fault goes to the movie-goers. A big chunk of the blame deserves to be directed back at the executives in charge of the movie theater chains. Their marketing is SHIT.

Why do I say that? Because they're doing next to nothing in pointing out the pathetic shortcomings of rival movie theaters. The Carmike 8 in my town could accurately claim they're the best theater in the state. They certainly could do so based on their sound and projection quality (better than anything I can find in Oklahoma City or Tulsa). However, Carmike is not going to place ads and twist arms of branch offices bookers and stuff like that to benefit the place. Why? Because Carmike has its own share of very terrible quality theaters. All the circuits do. They're all guilty in cost-cutting away every bit of quality they can out of the most important part of their product: show quality.

Well, the circuits might spend some bucks up front on hardware for a new theater. But they are CHEAPSKATES when it comes to good staffing and routine maintenance. A theater manager who is a film fan might care to make noise to get whatever he needs for his house. But many of the employees in so many plexi are just there to punch in and punch out.

In all, I think the situation would be more positive if customers were not so RECKLESS on where they spend their money. If they were a little more educated to film-going and more responsible with their dollars a great many of the pig sty dumps out there would be forced to close. Right now I just see the damned things staying open until the building literally falls down.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-01-2003, 01:09 PM:
 
I'm in a region with stadium theaters galore. Where I see a particular movie depends on presentation quality and product availability.

Reading Cinemas opened its 12-plex in Manville for Star Wars Episode 1. As good as that theater is, the 3 smallest halls have keystoning problems for scope ratio. When I wanted to see Harry Potter 2 (before Xmas) and Maid in Manhattan (on New Year's Day) Reading had moved those films to the smallest halls. I saw those 2 pictures at the AMC Hamilton since that megaplex can show scope ratio properly in every hall.

Product availability: Most stadium theaters are mainstream by nature, yet if they have an arty title I want to see I'll go there. That's how I found the AMC (nee General Cinema) Clifton Commons, Edgewater Multiplex and Regal Warrington Crossing. OTOH Reading is now boycotting all Fox and Universal product in Manville -- I had to go to the AMC Hamilton to see Phone Booth.

[ 06-02-2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Charles Everett ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-02-2003, 08:29 PM:
 
As long as we're sharing stories on what WE look for in theaters, how's this....

Being a die hard Star Wars fan, and someone keenly aware of a quality presentation, when Episode I was about to come out, I took off from work... (ready for this?) ...for TWO WEEKS STRAIGHT. My goal, to find a THX certified theater that was installing Dolby's EX, and that had a projection staff that cared about the presentation. (I was not working at a theater at that time.) Now, in this market, you can count the total THX auditoriums on one hand, so I was prepared to go to NYC or anywhere I had to to find the right theater. And I had two weeks to do it.

First I tried a local major chain 24 plex that was relatively new at the time (those in the Philly area know where I mean). I went to see the Matrix in their biggest theater figuring that would be a good test. But there was a horrible echo in that auditorium! I moved around to different spots in the theater, but it was everywhere. I don't know if that was ever "fixed" or not because I never went back.

Eventually I stumbled onto the GCC Plymouth Meeting 12. It was a brand new theater, only a couple of months old, stadium seating, all the digital formats, two THX certified auditoriums, and yes they were installing EX in the two THX houses for Star Wars. The projectionist there, a guy named Joe Tommassello (who currently lurks here... Hi Joe!), took me into the booth and showed me around as they were separating the surrounds. Joe seemed extremely dedicated, and was just as excited as I was about the opening. It was settled. I pitched my tent, and that's where I saw it.

The funny thing was that all the people who made fun of me taking off for two weeks suddenly wanted me to get tickets for them too!
 

---

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 06-03-2003, 09:36 AM:
 
Ever since I heard a group of my friends talking excitedly and happily about a recent movie going experience in a converted 1920's single which is now a triple I have to shake my head. The film they attended was in half of the former balcony, steep as a ski run, with off center projection booth and extreme keystoning, and operated by a projectionist who posts extremely elemetary questions on this forum from time to time, well you get the idea. It all seems to come down to convenience, scheduling, and ease of parking. Projection done right...what's that. Personally, I stick to theaters where I have passes!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-03-2003, 11:15 AM:
 

quote:

---

operated by a projectionist who posts extremely elemetary questions on this forum from time to time

---

Well, at least that projectionist is trying to learn to have "Film Done Right". The ones to worry about are those that are bad, and not even trying to improve or learn from their mistakes.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 06-03-2003, 11:41 AM:
 
Touche, John. I didn't intend to criticize the inexperience of the projectionist...merely the fact that the average patron doesn't notice.
 

---

Posted by Joshua Tefay (Member # 1722) on 06-04-2003, 03:17 AM:
 

quote:

---

merely the fact that the average patron doesn't notice.

---

Maybe the average patron doesn't notice specific technical issues, but i can assure you that the theatre i work in attracts many patrons who go out of their way to watch a superior presentation!

I know many who live closer to other locations owned by the same company but they choose to visit ours because of the attention paid to pristine presentation standards. This is the main reason I wanted to become a projectionist - so that I could ensure these standards continue. There's nothing more disappointing than to see a sloppy presentation, especially as a result of problems that could easily be fixed.

I've been lurking around these forums for some time now and i've learnt a great deal from you guys by just absorbing all the information you have to offer. This has aided my training immensely and taught me many things about being in the booth. Film-Tech is a great resource to have available - especially for a inexperienced projectionist such as myself!

Now im really able to ensure our patrons actually see "film done right". Thanks again guys!
 

---

Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 06-04-2003, 05:57 AM:
 
My competition is the largest chain in OZ (20 miles my three plex.) The only way they can get people to travel there is to put cards in letterboxes of people living in my little town, that give them tickets for under half the normal price. It works well for me -- makes my theatre more Frendly without scroungers:) They do discounts to competing theatres residents every where, other independent owners in my situation say the same- accepting there discount cards brings you nothing but agro customers.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-04-2003, 06:51 AM:
 
kevin,

you should one up them and let anyone who presents thier card in for free see how soon they stop that
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-04-2003, 09:29 AM:
 
My magical curse followed me again to the matrix reloaded, aside from being an aweful film we were hurded from a Huge 500 seat house to a tiny 120 seater, technical difficulty they said. The film was in the worst analogue audio i can imagine with some sort of phasey electronic distortion on the soundtrack. Complaining solved nothing.
Everytime I go to a theater something is wrong, (except Alien, Alien2,3 and ressurection @ Pictureville in Bradford, SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATION.) I find it annoying that I have to travel at least 30miles to find a presentation that i can have some faith in. So my main reason for choosing a theater is FILM DONE RIGHT.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-08-2003, 02:08 AM:
 
That survey is a load of crap. I will admit that presentation will seal the deal. But presentation alone is not only not a driving factor, in fact, it is a pretty insignificant factor for a lot of people. I think people check off what they would like to think they value. As others have said, neighborhood location is the overriding factor for most patrons(not me) when it comes to choosing a theater. However, poor presentation will be a driving factor for many people to choose to wait until they can watch the movie on DVD. Personally, I have stopped watching 4-6 movies a month in theaters(one month in the mid 90s , I watch 12 or 13 movies in theaters) because despite my preference to watch a movie on the big screen, I am fed up with your industry. For me personally, presentation is the dominant factor. However most theaters in Atlanta, and the rest of the country are crap when it comes to presentation. Sometimes, I wonder what happens at conferences like NATO. Are any of the theater owners even worried about home theaters continuing to steal customers from them because of their attitude towards presentation?

While I am bitter at many customers not giving theater owners much incentive to improve their presentation, theater owners should realize that there are many people who are even more fed up that I am , and have mostly looked forward to watching even big budget action movies on DVD. It's like unemployment stats. The ones who have given up looking for work are not even counted.

I wish some studios would have the guts to frame their titles so they would populate the entire width of the frame , or alternate them left of the frame and then right portion of the frame making it obvious to patrons that their theater is scamming them by not showing the image right.

As far as brightness issues, it is time that the very few theaters who do project at a reasonable brightness level start touting this aspect of their superiority over the other chains. While patrons may not consciously choose a theater for the picture quality, brighter pictures do tend to make the patrons happier and more satisfied with the presentation.

And when I ask many managers whether X men or matrix is playing on their big screens and which shows do, sometimes i get stupid answers like " all our screens are big or about the same size". I dont want to even confuse them and ask them about the sound formats of a specific auditorium. And some of them make it seem like they are being imposed upon by asking them this question.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-08-2003, 02:53 AM:
 
I am often asked how big the screen is or how big the theatre is. I really don't know what answer to give. I say it's a medium size theatre as it's corporate policy not to give out seat counts. There's several reasons for not doing so and one is a security issue.

As far as the screen size - I say it's well proportioned to the theatre. Really, it all depends on which one of the four aspect ratios we happen to be using at the time.

Besides, I've found that usually the people who ask how big the screen is don't know what an aspect ratio is. They're the same ones who ask if we have THX without a clue as to what that even means. (And no, we are not THX certified but our presentation is better than some of the THX certified auditoriums I've been to.)

Sure some theatre's presentation sucks, but studios don't need the 'guts' to frame their titles as you suggest. If a particular theatre crops the image to fit their screen it's only the people who notice such things that will notice at all, cropped titles or not.

But here's what I don't get. Why do you even bother to ask a theatre how big the screen is anyway when you're so content with a dvd? Even the smallest screen will give you a better picture than that overrated format .
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-08-2003, 12:48 PM:
 
Well, Matthew, when a theater shows X2 in 3 or 5 screens, I think patrons deserve an answer to the question as to which showings are in the best auditoriums (combinations of the biggest screen, most up to date bulbs, and the sound). I'll gladly take a SLIGHTLY smaller screen size for a certain showing if it has better sound than the another auditorium with a bigger screen. But now way would I want to be stuck watching X2 in the smallest of the 5 screens. And you would think managers would at least pay attention to picture and sound quality for movies that emphasize them. I don't expect managers to pay attention to each auditorium playing the latest Rob Schneider movie.

As far as framing, it would be nice of the filmmakers to tweak theater owners by putting at least some of the strategic titles in corners if they can get away with it aesthetically. Or even do it just for their production logo at the start of the movie. They can always fix it for home video. I am referring to those screens when you watch a movie in the 3rd or 4th week, where it is clearly some 2:1 screen or slightly bigger screen for a 2.35:1 movie with no adjustable masking.

As far as preferring DVD for some movies, I think you missed the point. I do realize DVD is less resolution than film. But when you see some of the graininess or bad quality film in some theaters due to scratches, dim projector bulbs, inconsistent film prints during opening week, I can enjoy the picture quality even on my lower resolution DVD at home better than the theater in a few cases. I think I have already mentioned that I used to be one of the biggest movie theater boosters versus homevideo of any kind. But I have to agree with some of the home video enthusiasts I used to argue with,that yes, sometimes home video can deliver a better picture than the average theater at certain times if size of the picture is not an issue for certain kinds of movies(small dramas or sitcomish comedies). Even Moulin Rouge, which should be a movie theater only type picture, looked better on a good home theater compared to the theater I saw it in(AMC Phipps Plaza, a decent multiplex) where all the colors were kind of washed out and the picture was a bit grainy and dim(OK, I realize Moulin Rouge didn't look as bad visually in every theater. but it had a home theater DLP projector type look). Once I saw that, I pretty much gave up on my belief that even an average theater will always give me a better viewing experience than home video.

Having said that, I still prefer movie theaters to DVDs for the good movies and for big action movies where size is something that you can't get on home theater without going to some DLP or LCD projector which I don't like for the lack of enough black level. But there are only so many movies where I have the patience to call a multiplex and ask " which screen is this movie playing on " because I do know which screens are bad on many multiplexes in Atlanta. So a lot of the time, it has come down to that for me. If movie theaters can improve to the point where all I have to know is if the movie is in a big screen or not, and not worry about other problems like bulbs, sound, then I will watch all the movies I want to watch in the theater and leave the pure mediocre movies to video.
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-09-2003, 11:40 AM:
 
Matthew, DVD may suffer from compression, Edge halos, excess grain, whatever. But when you put one in your player you know, pretty much you will be able to watch the movie in focus and with Digital surround sound of some form. Some 90% of the Cinema showings of films i have been to would give the director (of that particular movie) a heart attack. Complaining about things does NOTHING.

Its really simple, as a patron:
ALL I WANT TO DO IS WHACH A FILM, THE WAY THE DIRECTOR INTENDED. but all i get is film done MEGA- WRONG.

I think that perhaps the customers dont care about framing, digital sound, focus or screen size, BUT NEITHER DO THE STAFF.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-09-2003, 05:55 PM:
 
I've been thinking about this situation more and more with the f**ked up problem in my town. Sure, incompetent staff filled with apathy and no joy for film is one problem. But I think much of the blame for declining presentation standards deserves to be placed at the feet of the moron customers.

Sorry if that sounds rough, but it is true. 5.1 surround and DVD are both very commonplace items. So there is no excuse for customers to claim ignorance. They are being morons with their dollars and keeping the dumps in business. Those folks need a slap upside their heads or something.

And this is true for many other industries and problems overall in our soceity. We have a penchant for blaming some other big entity for our problems when a lot of it is our fault.

We don't accept responsibility. Get hooked on meth and can't quit? Blame it on mean parents or George Bush, but it's never your own fault. Install some cheap POS no-name disc drive in your PC or cheapie software and its toasts your OS? It's all Bill Gates fault. And it is always the staff's fault if a customer keeps visiting the same shitty theater over and over again getting the same result. But really the blame should go to the customer since he is the dumbass keeping the uncaring apes upstairs employed.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-09-2003, 07:04 PM:
 
I actually don't really enjoy watching movies in a huge auditorium with some giant a$$ screen and rediculous sound that is sometimes way too loud.

I sometimes will go to one of the large multiplex cinemas and in there largest theater (about 500) you have rows of about 30-35 seats which are in one straight line. Unless you get there early, sitting near the sides of theatre makes the screen of center because you seat is point straight ahead to the left side of the screen.

The theatre that I work at is about 200 seats and all seats are in curved rows that all directly point to the center of the screen. The theater is an SR equipped cinema and has a screen of about 20-30 feet which is not drowned out of color like the large screen at the cineplex that I go to sometimes.

I really like DTS, SRD but sometimes they are way to loud in the theater. JMO
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-09-2003, 07:19 PM:
 
I wonder if a "Film Done Wrong" protest would work. Go to a theater you *know* has a major problem or scratched print and stand outside with signs or flyers informing the customers of the problem.

A big, "THIS THEATER'S COPY OF 2FAST 2FURIOUS IS SCRATCHED!" sign would make people seriously think about taking that extra drive to the next plex.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-11-2003, 05:13 PM:
 
How I choose a theatre to visit:

#1: Circuit - I'm somewhat loyal to United Artists/Regal, and will choose their theatre to visit from the newspaper or Internet listings first.

#2: # of screens - I don't particularly care for these new 20 and 30 megaplexes and being herded like cattle. I will choose theatres with under 8 screens.

#3: Atmosphere - The theatre must be comfortable and 'cozy'. I also am more particular to the older theatres that have been multi-plexed from an original auditorium. Don't know what it is, but I do kinda like the strange viewing angles and the old "ski-sloped balcony seating" facing the walls.

#4: Movie Selection - this is #4 for me because I'll literally pass up seeing a movie if it's not showing at any of my favorite theatres. I'll basically see anything my local favorite cinema is showing (within reason of course).

#5: Presentation - yes, this is #5 on my list. I'm not saying I wouldn't care if the digital sound goes in and out, or if the film is not masked properly, at that point I'd just ask for a refund and go eslewhere. But I guess I'm with the majority of the public and am not too nit-picky about the digital sound having to be exactly perfect or the picture shown exactly perfect on the screen. I do, however, like it when theatres advertise which auditoriums they are showing which films in, and also the sound format. I know if I want to see an action film, I like having the CHOICE to see it in a digital sound theatre or a small converted balcony.

#6 - Customer service - My favorite local cinema lacks this sometimes, and then other times the staff has been great. I feel this is very hit or miss and you really can't judge a theatre by it's floor staff. I don't mind bad service ocasionally if I'm at my favorite comfortable theatre. Just start the movie on time and offer an acceptable presentation of it and a clean theatre I'm happy.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-11-2003, 11:08 PM:
 
The Pacific 16 in Bakersfield makes available copies of their full schedule to the public at their customer relations desk. This gives seating capacities of every auditorium, shows film switching at which times, etc. In the past the schedule has also shown the screen dimensions of each auditorium (strangely, it works out to 1.77 when doing the math, verified for those hard matted fx and certain previews that appear with thin bands above AND below the image). Also, that info alternated with what digital format was in what auditorium. And this info is clearly posted in the windows of the outside boxoffice as well.

Matthew, why would such information be secret? When Variety used to publish individual theatre grosses for their 20-25 city samplings, they always included seating capacity, including the Regent. And for NYC, they even included the NUTS of the Manhattan theatres (because those theatres got to subtract the nut from the boxoffice with no floors attached).
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-12-2003, 03:11 AM:
 
eric:
out of curiosity, why ua/regal? do you work for them or something? they're at the bottom of my list. sf has so much better to offer.

carl
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 06-12-2003, 05:51 AM:
 
Paul, one of the main reasons seat numbers aren't available to the public is for security reasons. Perhaps the thinking is that some ne-er-do-well sees a sold out sign on our window (HAH, like that's going to happen any time soon), asks how many seats we have and multiplies xxx # of seats X $9.75 and can figure out how much dough we have floating around. Of course that's kinda silly as the person could just count the people as they go in...

There's some other reasons that I'm sure I'd get a spanking for talking about. It's all corporate. Bobby, who you calling uncaring apes?

Paul H., you're so right about seeing film done wrong everywhere. Fortunately as I manage a (single screen) theatre and project at our screening room I have no time to go anywhere else to see films or watch anything at home. Therefore my blood pressure stays down.

Oh and Pravin, I apologise if I jumped down your throat - I've just been dealing with a lot of ignorant customers lately.
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 06-12-2003, 05:53 AM:
 
Eric Gave his reasons for choosing a theatre,
my main reason is Presentation, because i am a perfectionist, born and bred.
-My favorite cinema of all is PictureHouse@FACT here in Liverpool. 3 perfect screens and one called "The Box, " 3 with SRD, perfect focus, quite large screens, comfortable (screen 1,2,3 not "the Box ") and very respectful crowds of people who shutup and whach the film. BUT closed due to some roofing problems, God knows when they will re-Open. I miss it.

-Next favorite. My own home cinema. 1 screen, SRD DTS, not the biggest screen ever but fairly large in proportion to the room. comfortable, very very respectful crowds (my Girlfriend and I) even personalised toilet breaks.

-Next Bradford, Pictureville. Only problem is it's 60 miles away. To far to go unless for special occasion (ie fantastic films weekend, 70mm).

We all know that cinemas have to cater for crowds and not individuals, but if the theaters where I live were all like picturehouse in the FACT centre. My own home cinema would be way down on the list and those multiplex's would be getting my £s instead of Choices video

MATHEW- I Wish I could Visit your cinema to say hi BUT youre a bit further than even Bradford. take care.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-12-2003, 02:27 PM:
 
Carl,

I'm not real sure what draws me to United Artists (now Regal). Perhaps it's their marketing? Maybe it's the look and feel of their theatres? When you get used to something, you tend to stick with it. I do not like the AMC because it's an over-priced over-crowded fire trap and I hate the way they cut off the green MPAA advisories from their trailers. I tend to view all AMC theatres this way now and steer clear. The Metreon is the same way, too popular for it's own good. ($6.99 Nachos? Who are they kidding?) United Artists and Regal has been good to me. Walk right in, get popcorn and a drink combo, get a seat and enjoy. No hassles with tickets or crowds. UA/Regal also takes debit and credit cards whereas the other chains do not. And because they do offer such great places to go see movies *in addition* to their megaplexes, I'll choose their megaplex over another chain megaplex if I'm out traveling or if I'm in the mood for the megaplex experience (Regal in Dublin).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2003, 12:26 AM:
 
On theater seating counts, one can attain such information from the local city government and their fire code paperwork. If they give you any problem you can slam 'em with Freedom of Information Act. Depending on the city and its own set of rules some theaters will even have to list how many seats are in each auditorium on little fire code wall signs.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-13-2003, 05:36 AM:
 
eric,

thanks for elaborating. the only sf ua's i've been to (that i recall) are the coronet and the galaxy, since it went "arthouse". i went to the galaxy out of necessity to see films not shown elsewhere, but have not been happy with presentation and will try not to go back. [i will never ever set foot in the berkeley ua; i literally have nightmares about that place. i kid you not.] the coronet's presentation has been generally fine (and big). theaters like the alexandria look pretty nice from the outside but i've never been in. what really bugs me though about these theaters is the pervasive not-butter smell, the inescapable movie-tunes (in the bathroom??!), the slides... er, "pre-show". basically, all these things that make it a corporate experience rather than a film experience. amc is no better. and i really really hate those flippant ua/regal/amc-style policy trailers with rollercoasters and stupid animations right before the feature that put me in a foul mood.

no, i'd much rather go to the castro, roxie, red vic, or a landmark theater (conflict of interest--i work for them). if i want to see something that isn't playing at one of these, i can usually see it in the east bay at the grand lake or oaks (renaissance rialto, another good, but tiny, circuit).

carl
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-13-2003, 10:43 AM:
 
Carl,

Actually, I really like the "Regal Roller Coaster". I used to also like the UA policies before Regal took over. I agree with you on the UA Berkeley, it's very poorly run. And it's unfortunate because inside it's a beautiful place. I think in any Circuit there are very good theatres and then there's their bottom of the barrel scum theatres they don't care about. I don't agree with this business practice, but oh well. They must be making money on the Berkeley theatre or they would have closed it by now. The Landmark's in Berkeley *are* much nicer theatres. You should try to visit the Alexandria in SF sometime. It's very similar to the California in Berkeley. 1920's Egyptian art deco, warm, cozy atmosphere and friendly staff. My favorite here in SF. The Vogue and Metro are definitely worthy of visits as well.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-13-2003, 11:17 AM:
 
Count me in with those who like the Regal roller coaster. It's not *great*, but it looks and sounds pretty good, especially the latest one with the new sound mix. Thank god they quickly dumped the Pepsi girl one.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-13-2003, 12:12 PM:
 
David:

Allright folks! Let's get a few things straight...
There's to be no talkin' cussin' or fightin' during the show.
Don't wanna hear no cell phones or beepers...
I don't wanna see any TRASH on the FLOOR!
And keep your EYES on the emergency exits; Got it?

Anybody back there? Evenin' friend.
How's about servin' me up some of your finest?

*Thank you!*

AND NO SMOKIN'!!!!
Heh, that goes for all you folks, too.

I'd better be movin' along now. Ma's waitin...

(see manager with comments )

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-13-2003, 12:36 PM:
 
Well, as our local Edwards has yet to even start RUNNING the egal policy trailer, I'll have to take everyone's word for it.

As for me, I expect a well-lit, perfectly framed, sharply focused image. Sound needs to be clear, but I can live without DDIGITAL, as long as the system is well-tuned. For some reason, SR presentations in town tend to sound like CRAP! This is something I dont really understand, because when the DIG is playing back well, it usually does sound pretty well tuned. Heck, I can even put up with optic mono on a really well-maintained system.

Second, I like a theatre with some sense of individuality of design. Seeing a movie in a theatre means having a theatre ambience. I rarely get that any more. When I do, I consider it a special treat.

Snack bar specials have no interest to me. Several years ago, a UA theatre in town made you listen to their "specials" on their recording before they got to the showtimes. Another theatre in town has on their marquee "Don't forget to ask about our free cookie dough bites" or "gummy Bears" or whatever they are running this month.

Turnoffs (and I admit not seeing this since the 80's) were theatres who built snack bars next to the screen for blockbuster films)or who sent employees down aisles hawking food items, or who take up collections before a movie starts, making you feel guilty (and cheap) for not contributing.

I want curtains, classical or jazz or showtune music in uncompressed format (the C-O Century Plaza in L.A. used to do this on what had to have been one of the best THX systems around)a maximum of 4 previews (my mind cannot remember any more), maybe a short subject with a shorter than normal feature film, and a curtain close to break this up with the feature film, etc. I know, I ask too much!

BTW, Eric, I really enjoyed the UA Theatres in SF in the 70's, all very individual theatres: Alexandria (right before they split), Coronet, Metro, El Rey, Vogue. too bad I didnt have similiar experiences from other UA's (Berkeley, when it was only a 4-plex and twin).
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-09-2005, 10:37 PM:
 

It has been 696 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-09-2005, 10:37 PM:
 
HI Folks:

Like Eric Hooper, I also find myself at the older UA Theatres in San Francisco(Vogue, Stonestown, Berkeley 7, Alexandria, etc). These older theatres have so much history to them. Crowds are very modest so it's easy to get a good seat. For the most part employees seem to be more friendly than those of the monster-plexes.

I suspect that people into industrial design would find hacked up single screens interesting. I do. I like looking at the various modifications that are done to accomodate the multiplexing.

Finally, these small theatres remind me of my childhood (1970-1982) when i used to to go the Manor Twin (San Mateo, CA) & Belmont Theatres (Belmont, CA).
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-10-2005, 05:32 PM:
 

quote: Mike Croaro

---

Like Eric Hooper, I also find myself at the older UA Theatres in San Francisco(Vogue, Stonestown, Berkeley 7, Alexandria, etc). These older theatres have so much history to them. Crowds are very modest so it's easy to get a good seat. For the most part employees seem to be more friendly than those of the monster-plexes.

---

Hi Mike and welcome. Unfortunately the Alexandria and Coronet have met their fate within the last year.

quote: Mike Croaro

---

I suspect that people into industrial design would find hacked up single screens interesting. I do. I like looking at the various modifications that are done to accomodate the multiplexing.

---

That would definitely be the Berkely 7. - Carl: Believe it or not, since Regal took over things have acutally drastically improved at the Berkeley 7. They've really cleaned it up and even put in some new seats and sound systems! Also, since I'm in the East Bay now, I've been going to Renaissance Rialto and Landmark now. The Grand Lake ROCKS!

quote: Mike Croaro

---

Finally, these small theatres remind me of my childhood (1970-1982) when i used to to go the Manor Twin (San Mateo, CA) & Belmont Theatres (Belmont, CA).

---

Excellent! I used to love the GCC Hillsdale and the Belmont! Have you been to the Century Hyatt (ex-cinerama) triplex? That's another real fun one.
 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-10-2005, 11:39 PM:
 
Hi Eric:

Yes I was just at the Hyatt 3 last Sunday. I never visited this theatre when it was a single screen but one of my friends did. The "downstairs" auditorium is nice but they need to brighten the screen up. The "upstairs" auds are a bit funky in design but no worse than any other single screen subjected to plexing.

Glad to hear you're enjoying the Renaissance Rialto Theatres of the East Bay. I saw "Hitchiker" at the Orinda opening weekend. Have you been to the Oaks Theatre in Albank/Berkely? What a nice twin theatre.

Finally, do you or have you worked in theatres?

Best Regards,

Mike Croaro
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-11-2005, 03:14 AM:
 
eric,

glad (i guess) to hear that the ua berkeley is getting better. i still hear stories though from coworkers who have been there. i do like the grand lake. their main screen is great, the others ok.

next time you come to my theater (i think you know the one), ask if i'm there.

mike,

the oaks theater used to be renaissance-rialto, now they are metropolitan. i'm kind of hesitant to go there now with the movietunes and all, but if it's something i really want to see.

carl
 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-11-2005, 03:06 PM:
 
Hi Carl:

I did visit the Oaks Theatre (Berkeley, CA) recently and Metropolitan Theatres appears to be operating the theatre in a good manner. I do recall some auditorium music but it wasn't "movie tunes". It seemed to be more sophisticated. I have confidence that this will still continue to be a good quality venue.

If anyone else on the foum has had any experiences at the Oaks Theatre under the new management perhaps they will chime in.
 

---

Posted by Matt Hollis (Member # 2954) on 05-20-2005, 12:46 PM:
 
I find it kind of funny that 86% of the average movie-going population cared if a movie was shown with digital sound or not because I'm pretty sure 99% could not tell you after watching it if the sound was analog or digital.

Hmm... Something to think about.

Matt
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-21-2005, 03:26 AM:
 

quote: Eric Hooper

---

since Regal took over things have acutally drastically improved at the Berkeley 7.

---

i've heard from some coworkers that already on the first day they had scratched and then wrapped a print of swep3. ouch! also the digital apparently kept dropping out, though that could be a print problem like in denmark (but why not just run the whole thing in analog then?).

carl
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-24-2005, 12:54 PM:
 
At the Wed. night midnight show at the Grand Lake, the film burned in the middle of the movie. I heard they almost had a riot on their hands.

quote: Carl Martin

---

i've heard from some coworkers that already on the first day they had scratched and then wrapped a print of swep3. ouch! also the digital apparently kept dropping out, though that could be a print problem like in denmark (but why not just run the whole thing in analog then?).

---

Well, I guess they had to keep some of that UA charm. Yeah, when I saw the Interpreter a few weeks ago and the film was scratched for the first three reels. I still think the place is better run than it used to be though. Things got really scummy there for a while.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-24-2005, 02:51 PM:
 
another ouch! did they get it running again?
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-24-2005, 03:39 PM:
 
Yes, after about 10 minutes.
 

---