Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sick of front loading movies in multiplexes

This is topic Sick of front loading movies in multiplexes 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=001154

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-19-2004, 05:36 PM:

I wasn't too thrilled when a nice 2.35:1 movie would get banished to the smaller screen if you didn't watch it in the first two weeks. Now, it has gotten so bad, that Troy which is not even a week old has been shunted to two medium screens with top and bottom masking (making them effectively small screens) because that freaking Shrek is hogging half the multiplex screens in a Regal 10 plex.

A Regal 24 plex in Atlanta is playing Shrek, Troy , and Van Helsing on 12 screens. It kind of bothers me more this year because April movies have so been more entertaining than the May movies and this trend just killed the choices for quality movies at a decent screen. I am glad I caught all the April movies early. At least this 24plex has a lot of medium screen sizes with horizontal masking.

Back to the Troy being shunted to two small screens in this 10 plex. Shrek is a freaking 1.85:1 movie. This 10 plex has two big auditoriums and 8 medium/small vertical masking (depending on whether one watches a flat or scope movie) ones. Troy is 2.35:1. Why not play Troy in the the big screen auditorium with the lesser seat capacity and just leave one of the Shrek showings in the biggest auditorium with the mega seat capacity. If Shrek is going to sell out every freaking show, give it an extra auditorium and leave Troy in one big house, or do a split of Shrek with the worst performing movie to make up for the lost seats.

Putting Shrek on the two biggest screens wastes so much screen space and makes watching a movie like Troy less impressive. Shrek doesn't suffer much from going to the big screen to the smaller one since the side masking is brought in anyway on the bigger screen. But here is thing that is different from previous years- with so many Shrek shows around the clock, I doubt any patron will think it's much trouble finding a ticket for the next show which is probably just another 15-30 min wait. I seriously doubt they would need 50 extra seats or so with so many showings.

This same 10 plex pulled the same crap for Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2 before they remodeled to the current configuration. Both opened to similar numbers. They played T3 in a top bottom masking house and Legally Blonde2 in the bigger screen(but the seat capacity wasn't much more) with the side to side masking brought in because it is a flat movie. While the Legally Blonde 2 image didnt get enhanced much by being in the bigger house, T3's image suffered greatly. And both halls had enough seats to accomodate either crowd. The T3 auditorium was this long narrow shoebox theater. So it wasnt like extra tickets were sold to Legally Blonde with this arrangement. Stupid management.

[ 05-19-2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-19-2004, 05:56 PM:

Just wondering - did you use to work at the Regal 24 plex that you speak of?

[Wink]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-19-2004, 06:59 PM:

No Dennis. But I end up going more often there because they do have more decent sized screens. The Perimeter Pointe 10 is closer to my house and has only two screens worth watching scope movies on. Only good thing about it is the flat movies are not of bad size on all of the remaining 8 screens. I am ad verifier and need to pick a movie in this multiplex to watch. And Shrek 2 is more of a cable (I have hidef channels) movie for me.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-19-2004, 07:02 PM:

I believe that we could see the day, if digital projection finally takes hold, where every screen in a multiplex would play the same picture. Or, you might see re-arrangement during the day of what picture plays in which theatre. You could adjust to the audience demand...no one wants to see Picture A at 9:30, but you have an overflow of Picture B...just press a few buttons and no problem.

Posted by Brian Hogan (Member # 940) on 05-19-2004, 07:02 PM:

even the smallest screen at the theatre is still way bigger than the tv... and that rocks my socks off!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2004, 07:03 PM:

Pravin - don't you know that quality of presentation does not matter? Number of seats does.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-19-2004, 07:14 PM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I believe that we could see the day, if digital projection finally takes hold, where every screen in a multiplex would play the same picture. Or, you might see re-arrangement during the day of what picture plays in which theatre. You could adjust to the audience demand...no one wants to see Picture A at 9:30, but you have an overflow of Picture B...just press a few buttons and no problem.

Some of that concept leads to the inability to do proper newspaper advertising when it comes to showtimes. People get so upset when so and so movie was canceled to allow a show to run in it's place.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-19-2004, 07:33 PM:

When I worked at the megaplex, the LAST thing they thought about was screen size.

In order of importance, the factors are:

1) Seat count.
2) Running time of the movie. (So as to get the most shows per day.)
3) Traffic patterns within the hallways. (So people can leave quicker, thus minimizing time between runs.)

...

1,000,000) Screen size.
1,000,000,000) Picture & sound quality.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-19-2004, 08:57 PM:

Daryl,

Point well taken. I was not clear.

Instead of cancelling shows, they could be moved within the complex from a large room to a smaller one on the fly. I see how this could also cause problems, but the possibility exists.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-19-2004, 11:52 PM:

At my theater we actually have which is really weird the smaller theaters with 165 seats and 200 seats (no stadium) with a 30 foot screen each. The screens are huge for the auditorium and the surround speakers are up nice a close to the audience. The largest theaters is 310 seats and that has a 27 1/2 screen which is not as high as the other cineas. Our second largest theater is 265 seats and that screen is 20 feet wide.

Why. The theater that are larger at my theater are very narrow while the theaters that are small are very wide but short in length. The smaller cinemas almost like a square room.

I love the smallest theater at my place because it is much more intimate and cozy.

I love moving the prints to the second smallest theater because that is where you get the best size theater with the largest screen.

Isn't that odd?????

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-20-2004, 01:50 AM:

Yeah Tom, for me auditorium size means nothing as a viewer. I will take a wide small auditorium over a long narrow shoebox auditorium anyday for scope movies. Look, I am realistic and realize that money talks and selling seats are important. But it seems like there are creative solutions in assigning auditoriums without sacrificing box office revenue. If two auditoriums can accomodate the crowds of either movie, then assign the scope movie to the bigger screen for scope movies even if the flat movie has a few more customers as long as the smaller scope ratio screen auditorium can accomodate enough of the flat movie viewers.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 05-20-2004, 03:05 AM:

It's all about getting your dollar before the other guy these days. The busiest movies WILL be in the largest houses ... that's just a fact of life.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-20-2004, 03:31 PM:

Some places have screens that are SO much smaller than their biggest ones, that they should charge customers LESS if their movie is playing in one of the smaller ones!

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-21-2004, 07:32 PM:

I understand the frustration of seeing a movie in a smaller theatre. On the other hand, people can't expect to come out four weeks into the run and sit in your largest houses with three or four other people.

By the time Harry Potter opens,Troy will we occupying the smallest houses at the multiplexes. As Mike said, "that's just a fact of life."

As far as charging less for a smaller house, you would kill yourself if you tried it. Many folks would wait for the cheaper price and jam the small houses at the expense of the large ones. Don't think the distribs would be too thrilled about that. Further, it may be prohibited by your contract.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-21-2004, 09:02 PM:

JOhn, I understand 4 weeks. But 4 days?? That's the case for Troy in this plex. Half the size from the day before. That is pretty drastic change. They had so many shows I doubt they needed the extra capacity in the bigger screen theater. PLus it is only a 90 min movie allowing for a bazillion showings.