Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rant on stupid theatres

This is topic Rant on stupid theatres 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=000934

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-08-2003, 01:23 AM:

In this case - the Regal Village Square 18, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Besides the poor presentation of the film "Princess Blade", the entire experience at this theatre was horrible. Regal has reached new lows of micromanagement. Here's the list:

1. The only visible manager working is selling tickets at the box office (and no she was not giving a break).She also served as the usher tearing tickets.

2. The poor lonely concession person has a line of 10 to 15 people (both times I was in the lobby).

3. The "Regal 20twenty" looked and sounded GREAT. Too bad the 35 mm presentation of the actual feature had a dimly lit, flickering Xenon bulb.

4. Myself and one other person was viewing this feature until a very loud couple decided to join us 30 minutes into the film. Of course they sat right behind me and proceeded to unload their 'restuarant' food into thier laps. Around the time they decided to argue what would go best on their sandwiches, I exited to complain.

5. I had to go all the way to the box office -outside (because I thought this situation had a chance)and talk to the manager. She said that she could call the projectionist down to check on the people. I asked her how many tickets were sold to the film and she did not know. It was at that point that I LEFT.

Regal may be the largest, but they are last on my choice of locations to see a film.

The only bright side of this - is that I manage a theatre in Las Vegas and it ain't a Regal. Thank God for capitalism and good 'ole American competition.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 10-08-2003, 03:40 PM:

I see another round of bankruptsies looming in the future Dennis.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 10-08-2003, 09:00 PM:

Dennis, have most of your experiences at Regal theatres been that bad? The Regals in my area do a pretty good job overall. Before we all condemn Regal, let's make sure we have a sufficient sample size. I'm very cautious about using one visit to a location, or multiple visits to one location to condemn a chain. Multiple visits to multiple locations should be used in making assumptions about how well a chain is doing in general.

Here in Huntsville/Decatur, I've had very few problems with Regals.

1. Manager visibility -- a bit lacking at the Huntsville locations sometimes. In Decatur at Regal River Oaks 8, the manager (or whoever is on duty as the "manager" if he isn't there) is highly visible. I'd give the Decatur River Oaks a perfect score on "manager visibility and availability" while the others I'd give an average score.

2. Concession stand -- number of workers -- The Regals here are pretty good about having enough people working at the consession stands to handle the load. When I buy consessions, I seldom have to wait more than a minute or two, and often, there is someone without anyone waiting in line, so there is no wait many times.

3. We don't have Regal 20twenty here yet, so I can't judge how it looks compared to the movies being shown. The Regals tend to have good screen brightness and I seldom see flickering, dim bulbs.

4. Unruly patrons -- If you see enough movies, you'll have unruly, disruptive patrons. The best thing to do is just move if you can to a different seat where they won't bother you. If not, there's only so much the staff can do. On weekend nights, the staff at the Regal Hollywood 18 here in Huntsville are good about going in the theatres and making groups of disruptive teenagers behave. At Regal River Oaks 8 in Decatur, disruptive behavior is not tolerated and I've never had any problems there with disruptive people during movies. At Madison Square 12, other than occasional crying babies, there are few disruptive people.

In my area, Regal is very good and I'm glad the theatre being built a mile from my house is a Regal. The problems you mention aren't a problem with the chain as a whole, but with the staff at that particular location. Did you submit a comment card or write a letter to Regal about your problems and observations? I'd recommend that you do.

I don't work for Regal -- I'm a theatre critic and am just posting based on my observations here concerning Regal. Regal has done a good job maintaining and improving their theatres here, especially during the past couple of years.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 10-08-2003, 11:31 PM:

[ 12-16-2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Emma Tomiak ]

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-09-2003, 12:17 AM:

"3. The "Regal 20twenty" looked and sounded GREAT. Too bad the 35 mm presentation of the actual feature had a dimly lit, flickering Xenon bulb."

Based on my experience, the ads are all that matter. Nobody cares about the MOVIE! (To be fair though, they do make sure bulbs are changed when they have to be, though there may not always be time available for someone to change them.)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-09-2003, 01:42 AM:

quote:
I realize that a theatre can technically function with this few people, but it cannot function well at all in terms of customer service and the quality of the experience...

What do your health and safety laws say viz the number of staff on duty when the theatre is open to the public? In Britain this is determined by the council of the town or district in which the theatre is situated, but the usual rule is a bare minimum of one staff member per auditorium, each of whom has an allocated screen to 'clear' in the event of a fire alarm or other evacuation.

In some of the theatres I worked at and have visited the ushers in question were such morons that I wouldn't trust them to evacuate the contents of their own bowels, let alone 200 customers from an auditorium, but the rules say they have to be there...

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-09-2003, 01:25 PM:

With regards to Regal's technical operations quality here in 'Vegas, my experience is that they are distinctly #2 behind Century here. From personal experience visiting the big three chains here, the Century's seem to have the fewest technical problems. Regal comes in second with lots of little things wrong--stuff that annoys me but usually not enough to be a show stopper. UA comes in a distant third with poor projection quality being the rule rather than the exception, especially at their two off-Strip locations. I've had such consistently bad luck with the UA's here that I now avoid going to them altogether unless they're the only ones playing a title (which never happens here).

My last visit to a Regal here was also at the Village 18 to see Whale Rider. Very poor projection that day due to something smeared on the lens--very poor contrast and focus. Also, the sound kept toggling between analog and digital. I later attended another screening of this title at the Century Orleans and had another bad presentation (in my experience a rare occurrence at that theater)--ironically another smudged lens. Just couldn't win with Whale Rider in 'Vegas it would seem.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-09-2003, 04:21 PM:

Evan,

I worked for Regal for five years. I also worked at thier corporate office. Believe me, there is no 'bad blood' between me and them. I know that each individual location is only as good as the GM running it.
However, being a GM for them myself (at numerous locations) - I know that during these 'slow' months they cut their payroll drastically. I was only pointing out that by cutting their payroll to the bone - incidents like the one I 'ranting' about happen much more often than when their theatre is properly staffed.
That is why I was pointing out the specific location I went to. If I was the GM there, I would fight about running a 5% payroll at an eighteen plex. I would make sure that ALL of my customers get the best experience possible -whether it is a Tuesday night or a Friday night - and regardless of what month it is.

I wrote a personal e-mail to the division manager of the Las Vegas area. I asked him to show the letter to Mike Campbell. So far, I have not gotten any response.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-09-2003, 06:58 PM:

"Stupid theatres"?

How about the one that didn't open a big hit -- and when I asked why not, I was simply told, "We didn't get that movie"? (The theater is off service with the studio involved.)

How about the one that screwed around with the framing all through the last reel -- and when I complained, I was told, "That's part of the movie"? (That was for an arty picture at a megaplex that no longer runs arthouse fare.)

You will notice that names have been omitted to protect the innocent.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-09-2003, 06:59 PM:

quote:
Dennis Benjamin wrote:
I wrote a personal e-mail to the division manager of the Las Vegas area. I asked him to show the letter to Mike Campbell. So far, I have not gotten any response.

They are not interested in responding or dealing with anything.

As an employee, I have noticed that theater chains try to cut the hours of the projectionists the most since they get paid the most out of the hourly staff. Of course management never has to bite the bullet. They should, though, since they get paid the most. It would be much cheaper to just have the staff manage the theater (part time of course, since you don't want to *god forbid* pay benefits). Cheaper is better.

Charles, why withhold the names of the theaters? If they know they will be publicly embarrassed, they may be less likely to suck. OK maybe not, but it would at least serve as a warning to other potential customers.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 10-09-2003, 07:20 PM:

I'll definitely keep a watchful eye at the three Regals that I visit frequently for the "understaffing" problems. I haven't had any problems with excessive waits to buy tickets or buy concessions in a while. Of course, if I go to the Hollywood 18 on a Friday night when a popular set of movies is opening, I can expect to have to wait in line about 5 minutes to buy a ticket, even if all ticket windows are open. There are times when even a fully staffed theatre cannot keep up with the incoming crowds if everyone in town is trying to get in. Having all ticket selling windows open is all they can do in that case.

Some nights at other theatres are so slow that one person selling tickets and one behind the consession stand is plenty. The problem arises when a normally slow night ends up being busier than planned for, but I haven't witnessed that very often. I'm often the only person in an auditorium when I go on weeknights to see movies. If there are fewer than 60 people in the entire multiplex, and there are not more than 5 people in line at any time to buy tickets or more than 2 at a time to buy concessions, do you really want to have more than one person selling tickets or more than one concession stand person?

I'll keep an eye on staffing levels at the theatres more carefully to see if I notice long concession lines or ticket lines.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 10-09-2003, 07:26 PM:

Cut down on employees that are not in direct contact, or responsible for the cash handled....I have worked on some theatre design projects where the discussion and planning for money handling areas had primary importance.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-09-2003, 07:41 PM:

quote:
...I have worked on some theatre design projects where the discussion and planning for money handling areas had primary importance.

IMHO, if the money is important, so is the presentation quality. If you don't maintain good presentation quality, there won't be much money to worry about.

Posted by Raphael Jacquot (Member # 1936) on 10-09-2003, 08:21 PM:

talk about that one

Went to the "Nef Chavant" theater in Grenoble, France, to see Underworld.
while waiting for the previous presentation to end and the people to exit, went to the rest rooms (I prefer to take my precautions before the movie [Wink]

). I notice that people can't seem to pee in the receiver. go to an usher (they seem to use rent-a-cops there), and he says "can't do anything about it, ask that other dude there", showing a sub-manager of some kind.
I go to the dude and tell "erhm, the male rest-rooms over there need a cleanup", he goes "you see, we can't do that, we don't have janitors"...

Now, going through that movie was painful to say the least.
The ads were brand new, the THX trailer needed to be changed 5 years ago and the print, well....
this was on a wednesday evening (around 8pm or so) and it only had 3 shows on the counter (this is a THX multiplex, so they get first show prints). Yet, the whole movie had dirt, spots, vertical scratches all over (and probably more crap I didn't notice, not really knowing what to look for, now I know [Smile]

).

When I came out of the movie, back in there to get rid of the pepsi, the toilets were in worse condition, with a lake of pee on the floor...

That's when I decided to never go back to that theater any time soon and tell all my friends that they suck and that their customer service is a pile of [bs]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-10-2003, 04:59 AM:

quote:
How about the one that didn't open a big hit -- and when I asked why not, I was simply told, "We didn't get that movie"?

but this is common. the movie is playing somewhere else nearby, so it can't play there. and even if it's not, there are only so many screens at any theater and not all films can be played. you can't necessarily predict a big hit.

in any case, the logic behind booking decisions is, to the floor staff, and most management, typically quite obscure.

carl

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-30-2003, 05:32 PM:

quote:
Charles, why withhold the names of the theaters? If they know they will be publicly embarrassed, they may be less likely to suck. OK maybe not, but it would at least serve as a warning to other potential customers.

Thanks, Joe, I'll name names for this one:

County Theater, Doylestown PA. 2-screen arthouse that thinks it's a multiplex. As of this post the "Coming Attractions" part of their website lists movies that the theater has no realistic chance of playing:

Dirty Pretty Things -- already played at the Regal Barn Plaza (in Doylestown) and the Regal Warrington Crossing.
The Secret Lives of Dentists -- already played at the Regal Warrington Crossing.
Respiro -- came out on video last week.
Northfork -- already played 1 week in the Regal Barn Plaza.
Jet Lag -- might no longer be in release.

Posted by Daniel Wright (Member # 1983) on 11-03-2003, 05:21 PM:

I was visiting family in Fort Oglethorp Ga, and decided to see Pearl Harbor at the Carmike theatre there. It was I think a five screen. It was clean I will give them that, but in dire need of refurbishing. What was not excusable was the massive leak into the auditorium that Pearl Harbor was showing in. half the seats were soaked. From what I could tell it was comeing from a blocked drain tube on one of the ac units. It was almost raining in there.
Becuase of a problem that an ac repairman could have taken care of quicklly they lost half their revenue for a big opening weekend. Not to mention haveing half the the seats in one of their auditoriums ruined.

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 11-09-2003, 06:13 PM:

Maybe something will be done when it hits the press and gets the report gets forwarded to someone in a head office. I wonder how long the situation has existed that occasioned this item today:
From The Courier (Vancouver, B.C.) Nov.9, 2003

quote:

Despite the bottomless sea of crap movies containing the phrase "starring Angelina Jolie, " overpriced junk food and cattle call of Tuesday cheap-ass nights, the one saving grace of going out to a movie has always been that it was somehow better than sitting in front of a boob tube. The deafening sound, the gigantic screen, the way hundreds of people laughing can make a mediocre comedy seem funnier. Unfortunately, the management at Capitol Six seems to have lost sight of this. After two visits to the sagging cinema on Granville last week, intrepid K&K (the column) reporters had the misfortune of sitting through nearly a dozen TV-style commercials prior to their movies. Not only that, but one of the screens had a large tear in the top corner, which at times looked like a delinquent pubic hair on Sean Penn's forehead. Cap Six better wise up to the fact that if people wanted to see commercials and misplaced pubes they'd stay at home. Now bring on the next Angelina catastrophe!

[ 11-10-2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Keillor ]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-09-2003, 07:35 PM:

I betchya the screen wasn't torn but was only a hair caught in the aperture.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-10-2003, 04:12 AM:

how did a pubic hair get stuck in the aperture? i don't want to know.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-10-2003, 04:33 AM:

Adam depicts how in today's sneak preview update.

http://www.film-tech.com/sneak-peak1/party/party.html

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-10-2003, 01:32 PM:

HA HA! Now fix my damn MySQL server so's I can update the site.

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 11-16-2003, 06:21 PM:

Speaking of concessions staffing at BAD theaters...why in the world do managers want to cut their concessions staff in the first place? Low payroll is great and all, but from a practical standpoint, you make your money in concessions. If you're really busy and you have two concessions people, do you honestly think customers are gonna stand there for 25 minutes and wait to buy popcorn? Your per cap can and will drop. The point is to encourage people to buy, not discourage them.

I've been to a couple of theaters that are so obsessed with low payroll that it hampers the operation of the theater. But hey, the numbers look good on paper, right? Profits look high in the short run, but in the long run, you're hurting your customer base and your per cap. Just my opinion...

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-17-2003, 05:56 PM:

quote:
But hey, the numbers look good on paper, right? Profits look high in the short run, but in the long run, you're hurting your customer base and your per cap.

Looking solely at the size of the payroll is an extremely naive and unsophisticated analysis. What counts is the per cap, as you've stated, as well as the return on investment.

If a worker earning minimum wage sells just three additional people per hour at just a 50% gross margin on the items and just a $4 per cap, that's a net margin of $6 on the $5.25 investment or 12.5% return. Add a fourth customer per hour and the return jumps to 52%. A fifth customer and it jumps to 90% return. It's insane not to staff at a level that prevents people from walking away from the concession stand.

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-21-2003, 12:33 AM:

quote:
Not only that, but one of the screens had a large tear in the top corner, which at times looked like a delinquent pubic hair on Sean Penn's forehead.

Yeah that sounds like the good ol' Capitol 6 in Vancouver, a theater that is literally falling apart and on its last knees. And they won't even let us take pictures of it. [Smile]

Jason

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 11-21-2003, 01:22 AM:

The Capitol 6 has been neglected by Famous Players for sometime. They are running it into the ground because they simply don't give a shit. They are opening one of those neon-filled, lobby based theatres with the " latest and greatest " bullshit.

Sure it is far from perfect design, but at the time it was built it was the king of the castle. Cinema 1 is the biggest theatre in BC. It holds just over 1000 seats and it is very impressive in size.

Capitol 6 was also the highest paid union gig in town with 2 operators per 3 screens. That was all changed in 1988 when Station Square 7 was built and that became the highest paid union gig in town. In '95 the Capitol 6 lost the 2nd operator.

It was THE place to see movies in it's day. But the newer builds are simply busier because more money and effort are put into them. If they cleaned up the place, got rid of those god-awful seats and revamped the booth equipment, I'm sure it would be a very popular theater. Now, the walls are dirty, the ceilings are filthy and this stairway leading down to the underground parking smells like piss.

I think they are running it to the ground on purpose to get people fed up with seeing movies in a sespool so when the new 10 screen opens up, all the " guests " will flock there. IMHO, a very shoddy way of doing business.

RANT MODE OFF.

Posted by Kris Brunton (Member # 432) on 11-21-2003, 02:41 AM:

I think it is that they are not spending any money on the older non profitable theaters.

The Cap 6 I know well and it has one of the largest auditoriums and sound systems in theater 1 (or 2?). I do know the techs are doing there best to maintain the equipment and maintain the sound service in the Cap 6 but so often the technicians for chains are to busy putting out the fires to properly perform any kind of maintenance schedule.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 11-21-2003, 03:08 AM:

Yeah I know about the busy techs. They are overworked. They have something like 2 techs for all of BC? C'mon that is ridiculous. I recall that on one of the busy nights of MIB2, we popped the rectifier in one of the large houses ( 450 seats ) and cancelled the rest of the performances that night because the head tech was doing service in Victoria.

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-21-2003, 03:15 AM:

Kris,

Cinema 1 still holds the record for the largest cinema in a multiplex in Canada (1031 seats, give or take), if not North America. The sound system (I think SR-D only, I don't recall DTS ever getting in there, but it might have in the other theaters) was out-of-this-world a few years back; I remember seeing "Heat" there and the theater seats literally SHOOK in the shootout sequence. I saw a few advance screenings there last month while taking breaks at the Vancouver Film Festival and was unimpressed with the audio, which was now a lot quieter. The theater itself is still cool to be in, which is mammoth in size compared to today's shoebox stadium cinemas.

I completely agree with every word that Ron has said; both he and I have much interest in this theater which not only has its history, but it is a theater that COULD be run well if they fixed up a bunch of things, notably the seating, the sight lines, the sound, and the overall design of the place. I know, that sounds like a tall order, but why not fix what's there instead of building some stupid googooplex instead?

And that angers me the most. The record-holding massive theater 1 will fall victim to their crappy Paramount Colossus or whatever is going on 900 Burrard Street, which is nothing more than a typical Famous Players Silvercity Auditorium with its largest cinema holding no more than 450 seats, and all with common-width top masking screens. Granville #7 will then become the largest theater in Vancouver, with 664 seats.

I just wish I could share pictures of the place with you all, but Famous Players won't allow pictures and they have been very inconsiderate with my pleas to photograph what has been a staple of downtown Vancouver cinema for the past 26 years.

Jason

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 11-21-2003, 03:29 AM:

Jason,

I saw the sneak for Underworld in #2 and the sound was just awesome. From what I have seen looking through the port that it's DTS with a 2000 series SDDS reader. Which I could say the same about #6 where TCM played. That was horrible. Sounded like Dolby A.

It's indeed the last of it's kind. With the Vogue & Stanley live theatres now, and Vancouver Centre demolished, between Cap6, Granville 7 and the independant Denman Place ( ex-famous house ) the big houses that showed all that 70mm of the 80's are almost gone.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-21-2003, 10:24 PM:

I've been in Vancouver for the week, presenting an archivist's training seminar and attending the AMIA Conference here. [Cool]

Unfortunately, the very full schedule kept me from exploring the theatres. [Frown]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-21-2003, 10:54 PM:

John writes, "I've been in Vancouver for the week, presenting an archivist's training seminar and attending the AMIA Conference here."

Are you able to share your presentation slides?

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-21-2003, 11:18 PM:

The AMIA has the visuals for internal training purposes for its membership.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-22-2003, 11:29 AM:

It's Stupid Theatre Time again! This one is the Princeton Garden Theatre -- for opening Shattered Glass yesterday in a double-up.

Shattered Glass had its national arthouse break yesterday. Why the double-up? Yesterday the Princeton Garden also picked up The Human Stain (most likely a circuited print) and Love Actually (which finally went wide). Since Love Actually is a wide-release picture, the theater decided to double up Shattered Glass with The Human Stain. It just so happens the nearby UA Marketfair picked up Love Actually yesterday as well.

Fortunately the Regal Warrington Crossing will have Shattered Glass for Thanksgiving -- with a full round of shows.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-24-2003, 12:35 AM:

Yes - that's sooo stupid ... trying to play too much product. It's much better to just play one of the above pictures. In a twin, you don't have too many options.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-25-2003, 02:09 PM:

Double ups? How about TRIPLEups? There was a theater here that did that. one show each of 2 prints, and two shows of the third. The showtimes were set up so that it was necessary to move a print every show. Man, this was STUPID! I can't say which theater did this because they might fire me... oh... wait... oops... [Embarrassed]

=TMP=

p.s. - This is POST #900! w00t! -

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-26-2003, 12:28 AM:

The now-a-Staples Cinema West Washington Square Cinemas used to regularly double, triple, and on rare occasion quadruple-up prints, especially after the summer runs ended and around Oscar time. It wasn't uncommon to have 12-14 prints showing in this 5-plex at any one time.

-Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-26-2003, 05:43 AM:

Thomas, there are theaters that move prints EVERY show to maximise the number of shows in a day. The theory is simple. For example, you have a movie that runs 90 minutes. Showtimes are:

11:05
12:40
2:15
3:50
5:25
7:00
8:35
10:10

Look at that EIGHT shows in a normal day!!!

The trick is to move the friggin' print between screens every show (requires alternating between at least 2 screens). While the last reel or two is playing through in the first auditorium, customers for the next one are already seating in their already-been-cleaned auditorium.

There are other, even more evil tricks out there to maximise shows, but the projectionists on this board will probably hire a hit man if I mention them. [eyes]

Some things are best left unsaid. [Cool]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2003, 07:55 AM:

quote:
The trick is to move the friggin' print between screens every show

No need to move prints when you've got a platter array. [Razz]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-26-2003, 11:11 AM:

quote:
No need to move prints when you've got a platter array.

...or DLP

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2003, 12:26 PM:

Or changeover. Well, still moving the print but quite a bit easier and the shows can overlap while on screen not just on the gaps between.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 2038) on 11-26-2003, 12:52 PM:

Maybe this will seem blasphemous to monsterplex operators of today, but our little (520 seat) single screener will not run commercials or policy snipes or anything besides "Our Next" trailers. Why? Because our regular customers don't like them. We adjust the audio levels to the number of patrons so no one complains about too-loud or not-loud-enough. I adjust audio so the trailers don't blast. We actually care about our customers and it must work because they return week after week.

Reading this thread I see a lot of people who try to make the experience of their patrons a good one while their hands are tied by corporate. Must be frustrating.

In another direction, we have a Loew's Behemoth-Plex near us. I know many people who refuse to go back there. They say that you cannot see the exit signs from the stadium seats. They always say it was too loud, and the trailers even more so. They seem to run more teen-type movies and the crowds are unruly most of the time.

The worst thing about them is the recent spate of movies that attract the most unsavory people. Two weeks ago police from four towns responded to a gang war that started in the theatre and spread to the adjoining mall and parking lots.

The town the theatre is in is screaming that the theatre management cares little about the crowds it attracts. They tried to bill the company for the extra police needed in town on weekend evenings, mainly to babysit the theatre, and received no help from them. The local newspapers running the articles about the problems were each unable to get comments from corporate. And the unsavory types keep coming back and the fights continue. Wonderful for business.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-26-2003, 02:15 PM:

quote:
our little (520 seat) single screener will not run commercials or policy snipes or anything besides "Our Next" trailers. Why? Because our regular customers don't like them. We adjust the audio levels to the number of patrons so no one complains about too-loud or not-loud-enough. I adjust audio so the trailers don't blast. We actually care about our customers

Gary,

I'm gonna move to NJ just so I can see movies at your theatre! [Smile]

Keep up the good work. [thumbsup]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 11-26-2003, 03:50 PM:

Good for you Gary! It nice to see someone actually cares about the audience. I'd rather have an "operator" who "does film right" that a "film-tech" who is so caught up in the technical aspects of running and reparing projection and sound equipment that he/she forgets about the enjoyment of those who make their employment possible.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2003, 04:16 PM:

quote:
We adjust the audio levels to the number of patrons so no one complains about too-loud or not-loud-enough. I adjust audio so the trailers don't blast. We actually care about our customers and it must work because they return week after week.

Same here. We have it pretty easy because I can actually look out from my office and see the screen, so I can tell immediately if something isn't right. Sometimes I hate being a single screen but there are advantages.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-26-2003, 05:18 PM:

quote:
We adjust the audio levels to the number of patrons so no one complains about too-loud or not-loud-enough. I adjust audio so the trailers don't blast. We actually care about our customers and it must work because they return week after week.

I do this, too. Since I am the fill-in guy for a bunch of places, sometimes it's done by automation (at the 6-plex art house); in singles, it's done by hand. Same result as far as the audience is concerned, whether it's a single with carbon arc or a multiplex.

I should also point out that not all chains show slide or film ads. Landmark certainly doesn't. I like singles as much as anyone here (if not more), but I'll defend the multiplexes which put on a good show.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-27-2003, 01:28 PM:

Brad, how big is that theater and what's the staffing like? With shows crammed back-to-back like that, you'd need at least two people in the booth moving prints and one threading, not to mention the floor staff going nuts because there's no time to count drawers, restock concession, sell tickets, clean theaters, change mylars/signage to the correct theater, AND handle the rush of people coming in all at the same time.

You would have to almost double-staff, which would completely ruin the business model of the multiplex which is, "Double your profits but only increase overhead by 1/4!"

So what other ways are there to squeeze in more shows? I'm curious. The phrase, "Nothing important happens in Reel 3 anyway" comes to mind. [uhoh]

=TMP=

Posted by Lauren Fisher (Member # 1905) on 11-28-2003, 04:02 AM:

this thanksgiving i was informed by my family from houston about a bad theatre experience. the theatre was in Sugarland, tx, an AMC i think...they said the colony something along the lines of that... but anyway...they sat for a long period of time (2hours) no explainations until a manager came in at the end of the period, then they all had to relocate to another house, and sit again for another hour or so so the projectionists could 'rewind' the film to get it on screen. they all received rainchecks, but i dont understand why there wasnt a manager in that house as soon as the projectionist knew it was going to take a while to fix.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-28-2003, 04:05 AM:

I don't understand why somebody would sit there waiting for two hours. [Smile]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-28-2003, 12:03 PM:

The same reason people dont come out to complain when you splice 3 minutes worth of green bands before the feature... [Smile]

SOMETHING will happen soon...

=TMP=

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-06-2003, 06:14 PM:

Oh yes people will wait for a long time.

In the past whenever there has been a projection mistake in a film i'm watching it's ALWAYS me who goes out to let someone know.

----------------
Remainder of post removed by poster.

[ 12-10-2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Michael Brown ]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 12-06-2003, 10:56 PM:

Michael,

Sound to me like your booth staff needs to be replaced.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-10-2003, 08:58 AM:

Woah - blowing things up a bit there Jason!

Oh no no no no - those two minor incidents were spread out over quite a few weeks and we have a lot of screens.

I have no doubt that the booth staff here do an excelent job. Before I started working here I saw many films with never any problems.

And the latter end of my post (which hasn't been deleted) was referring to the cinemas where I watch films - not the cinema where I work.

[ 01-08-2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Michael Brown ]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-18-2003, 08:28 PM:

Another great Regal Story:

One of my employees went to go see a movie at a local Regal location (Rainbow Promenade 10) Here is the story she related to me this evening (Please look at my original post at the beginning of this thread):

Her and her 5 friends went to go see a movie at this older 10-plex. They walked up to the box office and noticed that the cashier was busy selling AND tearing tickets. It was cold outside, so they figured they could walk in and buy tickets inside. Well, once they walked in the front door they realized that there was no usher and the box was not opened on the inside. Once they were inside - they were able to watch two different movies and no-one ever checked to see if they had tickets. The only employees they saw - was the box cashier and the concession worker. The concession worker had a huge line and never even saw them walk in. They proceeded to spend an entire evening at this theatre skipping from auditorium to auditorium.

Anyways, I had to put this on here. I thought it was funny, because it supports my original post.........

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 12-18-2003, 10:34 PM:

like a local theatre in a certain chain that offers purchases by phone and gets a $1,00 service charge per ticket - reported separately and not included in the boxoffice gross, so it is free of film rental costs. The theatre often does not activate the ABM/advance for our equivalent of PG/R films because of the staffing problems due to time checking these tickets. For about $30 in a shift cost for an extra person who on a busy night could be useful in multiple functions, the theatre loses over $100 in revenue on a busy opening night, and probably lost a couple thousand dollars on the last Star Wars because of head office stupidity and ochre-lipped supervisors regarding inviolable budgets.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-19-2003, 01:49 PM:

Well, I bet they got to see a lot of ads at that Regal, so that should at least make the advertisers happy! [Razz]

(Why not let everyone in to see the ads for free, but kick them out when the actual movie starts?)

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-22-2003, 04:11 PM:

Landmark Theatres has a contest tie-in with Sony Pictures Classics for "Oscar Bait" picture The Company. The contest link is currently on the New York City page of the Landmark website. The Landmark Sunshine Cinema is in the same booking zone as the UA Union Square. Guess which theater opens The Company on Xmas Day? The UA Union Square.

The Regal people in Knoxville will be thrilled to hear that.

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 01-08-2004, 05:52 PM:

Luckily this occured at my major competitor recently. My assistant manager had a couple friends attend Matrix Revolutions at our competition due to the claim of thier curved screens. Keep in mind they do not computer generate the curve and have terrible keystoning all around the outsides. That aside these friends came to us and asked how the picture that should be at the top part of the screen could end up at the bottom. We replied with the obvious "it was out of frame". They asked the manager at this location and he told them some prints are just made that way, and they didn't have time to get a replacement. All I can say is, I'm glad he's my competition.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-09-2004, 12:14 AM:

Computer generate the curve? WTF?

=TMP=

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 01-09-2004, 10:51 AM:

Use a computer program to calculate the level of the curve based on the spread of the light from the lens. That's the only reason to curve a screen, the light spreads out word and it will hit the sides after the center. The curve corrects this by theoretically matching the distance the light travels to all parts of the screen. (Or so it has been explained to me) We have this in one location, looks great but if you just slap up a screen and arbitrarily curve it, the result looks like [bs]

A curved screen that is planned properly, I have been impressed with, but not this place. The credits are especially hilarious, the center of the screen is crisp, but all edges are out of focus. If they played a subtitled film, you could not read the bottom of the screen. I have asked them to touch up focus, but they fiddled and made the outside crisp and center out. That tells me the distances are very different since that is essentially what focus changes.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-09-2004, 07:16 PM:

And here I never knew my tape measure had a built in microprocessor. [Wink]

Posted by Roger Katz (Member # 1625) on 01-10-2004, 11:19 PM:

Here's another rant about a theatre I've complained about before due to poor presentation (breaks between reels, film running backwards) and upkeep of the theatre (holes in the screen, missing seat bottoms, creaky fans, etc.). tonight I went to see the 9:00 showing of Kill Bill. The theatre owner was running the concession stand while his approximately 10-year-old grandson sold the tickets. When the movie starts the theatre owner is supposed to go up to the booth, turn on the projector, and then ensure everything is all set. Apparently he went into the booth, turned the projector on, and then went back to the concession stand. After a couple of minutes I went out to the lobby and told him that he needed to turn off the lights on the theatre, which were still shining brightly. He commented that he had forgotten and then turned them down. Now that it was dark enough to see the picture I went back in and soon realized it was way out of focus. I went out to the lobby, asked the 10-year-old who was the only one out there where the guy running the theatre was and he told me that HE was now the one running the theatre. Apparently the theatre owner had left to do something and for quite a while the theatre was staffed only by one 10-year-old boy (and yes he was 10, I'm not exaggerating). In addition to being out of focus, the picture was too wide for the screen so not only did it shine on the wall next to the screen, but also on the curtains on the side of the auditorium. Also they had it in the wrong place as the bottom of it was below the screen while the top part of the screen was dark. Finally after about 15 minutes the owner returned and focused the movie. Naturally, there was about 10 seconds of darkness when switching from one projector to the other in the middle of the film, and then of course also the picture ran off the opposite side of the screen from the one it was running off before.

I have never worked in the movie business, but I swear I could do a better job running a theatre than this guy. Hell, it would literally be impossible to do worse. If only it comes up for sale sometime...

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-11-2004, 12:04 AM:

This is late--haven't been watching this thread...

Dennis wrote:

quote:
Another great Regal Story:

One of my employees went to go see a movie at a local Regal location (Rainbow Promenade 10)[...]

Actually, the Rainbow Promenade 10 is a UA location. Doesn't really matter though, the place truly does suck, just like UA's other off-Strip location here, the Green Valley 8. Easily the two worst first-run 'plexes in the valley for projection quality.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-11-2004, 12:40 AM:

Roger - let me know about that theatre -too. I am sure me and my 4 year old could do a better job. (Guess there is no enforcement of Child Labor laws in that area?)

Paul - Regal and UA merged a little over a year ago. Sadly, Regal has been engulfing the entire western hemisphere's theatres.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-13-2004, 02:32 PM:

I think that it varies from state to state but I believe that some of the child labor laws do not apply if the child is related. Some kind of family business exception.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-13-2004, 02:35 PM:

I believe it's called "The kid wants to eat, the kid works for free" law.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-10-2004, 04:44 PM:

Bringing this back up...

Hey Starlite Cinemas 10 in Lakeland, FL. Your presentation SUCKS!!

I went to see Van Helsing at their supposed THX certified auditorium. This is equipped with SDDS. I could get better sound from my mono speakers in my theatre. I prefer DTS much more now.

I left that theatre to go to New York Minute...Sure enough it looked like their bulb was about to die. There was black fading throughout the whole picture.

I finally went to Johnson Family Vacation. I saw the picture shacking back and forth in the gate. There were numerous base scratches and the commercials and previews were riddled with scratches and specks and emulsion scratches. I'm never going to see a film there again.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-10-2004, 06:16 PM:

Hey -you were theatre hopping. That is theft of services!!!

[Big Grin]

In regards to my last post on this very thread -- Regal is gulping up those damn theatres in Hawaii too......

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 05-20-2004, 12:35 AM:

Another Cineplex rant: SHRECK 2 opened in 2 of their local theatres, but the title is not listed in their Cinecharge system - effectively denying it may be on screen to anyone using the system instead of a newspaper, and again depriving them of the service charge revenue. And it's a long weekend coming with rain forecast, so pre-booked matinees are ruled out.
And WTH is this Evite on Fandango? - from the French éviter - to avoid? Must have been suggested by the same person who proposed Lourdes as a child's name to Madonna - from the French for heavy, it's the feminine plural so the kid will go around being known as "heavy women".
My spleen feels better now.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-20-2004, 08:34 AM:

quote: Roger Katz

...the theatre was staffed only by one 10-year-old boy...

Not only is there a problem with that in terms of Child Labor Laws, about 10 other laws were broken. The least of which is that it's illegal to allow anybody under the age of 18 run projecotrs. I'm not talking about letting under age kids run machines. (Popcorn poppers, etc.) I mean that there is a specific federal law that says you have to be 18 years old to be a motion picture projectioist.

How about health and safety laws? What if there was an emergency? Could a 10 year old ensure that people get out of the building in a fire?

Nothing wrong with teaching your kids some responsibility and making them work in the family business but that's rediculous!

Posted by Todd Cornwall (Member # 2205) on 05-25-2004, 12:24 AM:

You have to be 18 to run a projector? Do you know where I could find more info on that federal law? I'd be very curious to read up on it.....VERY curious.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 05-25-2004, 03:48 AM:

Projectors, for some odd reason, are classified as heavy machinery. This is why '17 and unders' aren't supposed to run them. As for Regal ... "We are Regal of the Borg" <gulp Act III>, "resistance is futile" <gulp United Artists> "your theaters will be assimilated" <gulp Edwards>. Next?

- Mike

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-25-2004, 08:29 PM:

Next - would be those theatres over in Hawaii.

Regal Borg - I like that.....

[Smile]

Posted by Todd Cornwall (Member # 2205) on 05-26-2004, 12:50 AM:

I had no clue. Projectors are heavy machinery alright, but then so are cars and trucks. So are pizza ovens and popcorn poppers for that matter. Thats a pretty interesting law. Doent make much sense, but interesting non-the-less.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-26-2004, 02:41 AM:

Or like Southwest Airlines, the Borg of the airline world. They just opened a new base in Philadelphia where their intent is to blow US Air out of the water--just like they did in Baltimore.

Now returning this thread to "Rant on stupid theatres" already in progress.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 05-31-2004, 02:38 AM:

I'm assuming the law has something to do with the dangers of handling Xenon bulbs improperly but probably stems from the days of carbon-arc lamps.
Where could we find more about this law?