quote:

---

Theater owners lack focus
By STEVE PERSALL, Times Film Critic
Published November 18, 2005

AMC Theatres controls 3,475 movie screens worldwide. Perhaps the one at Tampa's Veterans 24, where a recent showing of Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was spoiled for 14 minutes, is the only one with projection problems and a staff that can't immediately handle them.

Don't bet on it. Going to the movies and expecting satisfaction is already enough of a gamble.

You should've been there, but be glad if you weren't. A few hundred moviegoers experienced a key reason why fewer movie tickets are being sold in 2005 than any year since Ronald Reagan was president.

Theater owners have blamed the box office slump on several factors: declining Hollywood quality, a wider variety of entertainment distractions and the convenience of DVDs and pay-per-view TV.

What exhibitors don't easily admit - this is what the Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang audience suffered through - is that theaters sometimes get sloppy with their film presentation. Who wants to spend today's ticket and babysitting prices to see a movie that's out of focus, incorrectly framed and screened through the wrong projector lens?

This isn't rocket science, folks. The problem at Veterans 24 could have been quickly solved if the employee pushing the automated projector button had simply looked through the booth window to see if anything was wrong. Instead, the anonymous employee - AMC protects its "associates" - hit the button and walked away.

What he or she would have seen was like something from a fun house mirror, crunching the image from the sides. The picture was that way for the AMC promo with the dancing film guy, through the Warner Bros. logo, and lasted more than 12 minutes into the movie before it was corrected. Who knows how long it would have continued unless someone (in this case, me) hadn't gone to the lobby to complain?

Everyone else in the place remained seated, figuring someone in charge would notice and correct the problem. I knew better.

What I found in the lobby was more upsetting than the distortion: indifference, ignorance of projection techniques and a distinct lack of hustle to correct the situation.

I haven't threaded a projector since my father's last theater closed 30 years ago, but recognized the problem as an incorrect lens aperture. You see, movies are projected in two basic formats: flat and scope. Think of the flat format as your television with a squared image filling the screen, and scope as the wider, narrower image created by letterboxing.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is a scope movie that was being projected through a flat aperture, resulting in the squished image. (If it were a flat movie shown in scope aperture the image would be stretched sideways and vertically crunched.) There's a switch on AMC's projectors that flips between apertures without stopping the movie if there's someone alert in the booth to flip it.

Neither of the two AMC employees I spoke with - a surly young man who didn't appreciate my complaining and a manager whose first words were "I'm not in charge of the screening" - knew what an aperture is. I've since learned that AMC employees go through a training program ironically called PicturePerfect to learn projector operation. Perhaps a remedial course is in order.

"We also have a program called GuestFirst that all associates must complete before working at an AMC theatre," spokesperson Melanie Bell said in an apologetic e-mail. "The fundamentals of GuestFirst build the foundation for our company's mission: To provide guests with the best possible moviegoing experience."

Okay, maybe a remedial course in that, too.

Incorrect apertures aren't the only problems moviegoers face in theaters, and not only AMC venues. Over the years I've heard numerous readers' complaints about blurry focus, dim projection and blaring or inaudible sound systems. (We could add expensive snacks and a lack of supervision of talkers and cell phone users, but that's another column.) Occasionally someone will wonder how movies costing millions can allow boom microphones to be seen hanging over actors' heads, or subtitles to be obscured.

Filmmakers generally don't allow such mistakes to sneak through. But exhibitors create them by framing the screen image too high. (Conversely, framing too low would chop the top off actors' heads.) A film frame is smaller than the light beam projecting it to the screen, so a framing mechanism on the projector trims the edges of the image. A simple lever controls the framing height, if anyone's paying attention.

The framing continues on the screen, where black masking material must be adjusted horizontally and vertically to fit flat or scope images. Even when Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was finally projected in the proper aperture, the projectionist didn't adjust the masking to match it, creating a distracting spillover of light and prompting another lobby visit.

The grumpy AMC guy wasn't familiar with the exhibition industry term of "masking." By that time, I wasn't surprised.

Warner Bros. paid to rent that Veterans 24 auditorium for the Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang screening and didn't get their money's worth. Neither did those moviegoers who got in for free. These promotional shows are intended to create word-of-mouth advertising for movies. You can bet some people said more to friends about the glitches than the movie. The theater lost valuable capital with potential customers.

Are they likely to return and buy tickets? Maybe, but DVDs and microwave popcorn become more appealing with each exhibition mistake.

We're living in a world in which providing customer service is touted in commercials as a perk, after it used to be an instinctual part of business.

You would think the film industry, faltering as famously as it is, would make it a higher priority for survival.

- Steve Persall can be reached at 727 893-8365 or persall@sptimes.com
[Last modified November 17, 2005, 08:29:03]

---

 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-11-2005, 01:44 PM:
 
I want some of those magical apertures that squish and stretch images.
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 12-11-2005, 03:51 PM:
 
He must not of been paying alot of attention to what Dad was showing him 30 years ago!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-11-2005, 04:53 PM:
 
..yet, funny is how did he know about AMC using Christies having that flat/scope switch sequencing to change the lens/masking...
 

---

Posted by Nick Scott (Member # 2850) on 12-11-2005, 05:20 PM:
 
I think the industry has changed just a little in 30 years. sarcasm
Or Maybe there really isnt much difference in running a single screen to a 24plex maybe hes the only one that no's???
He does make himself sound like gods gift.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-11-2005, 05:44 PM:
 
Hmm. It's easy to trash the writer, but his points are very valid. 1) The film was projected incorrectly, and 2) Customers reporting the problem were treated with scorn (or maybe it was just indifference).
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-11-2005, 05:53 PM:
 
Of course. We all know that the majority of multiplexes suck and are run by people who couldn't care less. That's nothing new.

If you're (the Times author) going to attempt to flaunt your knowledge on a subject, though, you should at least get it right.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-11-2005, 05:56 PM:
 
Agreed. It makes the writer look foolish and undermines his point.

'Course, only a handful of readers will understand those technical details.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-11-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
AMC has the same problems as any large company in any industry...getting all the details right.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-11-2005, 08:34 PM:
 
..another from of the "Booth Monster" - the one who doesn't check if the platter is taking up the film, let alone check focus, frame and lens settings?

There seems to be a interesting trend of work ethics that is gradually creeping among almost any workforce around the world, and it seems to be more to the attention of "teamwork", than needing quality experienced people, especially in entry level occupations - and may I include this to the theatre industry in a general term.

It used to be of yore that if an individual had qualifications and experience in any field, these were great attributes for that individual and to the workforce to help the workforce grow, move forward/upward and to be successful.

Now, it seems that if that individual who has qualifications and experience is almost considered a threat to this "teamwork" related workforce, since that individual can impose any form of leadership and "sway the masses" to his liking with his qualifications and experiences - even that individual doesn't mean to cause any "swaying of the masses". It just happens that way.

Case in point: Reading Boxoffice magazine on the history of the 70yrs of Marcus Theatres, whereas Mr. Marcus started from the ground up as a theatre M/O and established a rather interesting empire in the midwest. His tactics were simple put: invite people into his business to help it grow. Let their talents shine and established a good work ethics to where all employees feel that they are a part of a huge "team" and Mr. Marcus is the "Vince Lombardi" of the company.

The same goes with Mr. James Edwards - he started from the beginning as an employee of a silent theatre and decided to have his own theatre. Thus, in 1930 he opened up his first theatre and in a nutshell, invited anyone to help him and his company to be a very successful company until he passed on....and now you know the rest of the story...

It seems nowdays that these circuits - big and small - don't really want to invite their employees to be a part of the operation. They just want them to do the job necessary and thus the "teamwork" atmosphere comes into play where quality and experience isn't needed due to the fact that these attributes could possibly jepardize the entire delicate operation - you might say "to rock the boat".

But hey, it't just an opinion of mine and just an observation that I've been noticing. Thus, I could be wrong in all of this (and apologize if any feet are accidently being stepped on..)...but it's still a thought that I couldn't help but sharing to all.

thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-11-2005, 09:00 PM:
 
I met James Edwards Sr. at the grand opening of the Edwards El Toro 5, one of their better "neighborhood" builds. That was probably in 1985. He was proud of his theaters and he made sure I got a booth tour. I probably mentioned this in some other thread a long time ago, but he liked to randomly drop in at his theaters, unannounced, so he could see for himself if things were being run properly, including walking at least one auditorium. Edwards Theatres always had curtains, even after competitors like AMC came to town and dispensed with that element of showmanship. I am rambling.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-12-2005, 06:47 AM:
 

quote: Matt Fields

---

AMC has the same problems as any large company in any industry...getting all the details right.

---

quote: William Hooper

---

So now just getting a picture on the screen right is just "details"?

---

It's not that I think good presentation is unimportant. The movie is the reason people are at the theatre in the first place.

But, when you are AMC and you have 3000+ screens, each one with 4 or 5 screenings a day, each show becomes a small detail when you are in management, especially upper management. Thats the reality of having 15000 screenings a day as a company.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-12-2005, 03:39 PM:
 
OK... here's how you fix the problem!

As I understand the system, Regal's network reports the time that the booth is turned on and the digital ad stuff gets a "dry run". It also tattles on the "projectionist" by reporting the time the automation start button is pressed. Maybe what they also need is a keypad where the "projectionist" enters his employee number, then a series of "I really did it" buttons... one for focus, one for framing (yah I know, they shouldn't need it), one for volume, etc, etc. Then, if a complaint comes in, the info would be logged as to whom it was that should have actually checked those things. X complaints & yeroutathere!

... something like the bathroom checklist, y'know.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 12-12-2005, 03:57 PM:
 
I emailed Steve and gave him some basics on how the lenses and aperture plates work. He was appreciative and wrote a followup to correct himself.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-12-2005, 04:42 PM:
 

quote:

---

Then, if a complaint comes in, the info would be logged as to whom it was that should have actually checked those things. X complaints & yeroutathere!

---

Hell, if you're going to automate things, you might as well just connect mains to the automation start button through a relay that'll close and have them zapped if they fsck'd up the last show.
 

---

Posted by Roger Manning Jr (Member # 1560) on 12-12-2005, 04:55 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If people would just start avoiding that theatre and seek out ones with good presentation, the problem might be helped. The vast majority of people will choose convenience over quality, unfortunately.

---

There is no theater with "good presentation" around where I live.
The Encinitas AMC is closing glad to see it go what a shitty place to see a movie, That leaves the Ultra Star La Costa witch is a little bit better but not much.
Roger
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2005, 11:40 PM:
 
Gee, I know of an easy fix: go digital...(RIGHT!!)

just like cars when they came out with an automatic transission option: took care of burnt out clutches, spun gears and stripped syncros.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-13-2005, 01:53 AM:
 

quote: Matt Fields

---

But, when you are AMC and you have 3000+ screens, each one with 4 or 5 screenings a day, each show becomes a small detail when you are in management, especially upper management. Thats the reality of having 15000 screenings a day as a company.

---

quote: Paul J. Neuhaus

---

At the end of the day the multiplex manager has allot of responsibility as to delegate authority over colateral departments but you can only delegate authority not responsibility THE MANAGER IS STILL RESPONSIBLE

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

just like cars when they came out with an automatic transission option: took care of burnt out clutches, spun gears and stripped syncros.

---

...but for those whose could drive a stick, it also took out the fun of driving. Boring.

While in the booth of an "older" AMC theatre doing 16mm work for a film festival several years ago, I noticed posted signs reminding the operators not to use the start timer on the Strong CPA-10 automations and always manually start shows and check focus, framing, and turret action. Maybe the reminder signs were like most any other sign you'd see anywhere -- up for a reason, but frequently ignored.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 12-13-2005, 10:20 PM:
 
I find it strange that AMC finds it necessary to spend X-thousands of dollars on "training programs" for its booth staff. Are their employees unable to one-on-one train their booth staff with a personal touch, specific to the equipment they're working with? What about quirks or tweaking in machinery? In my experience, a broad program will only interfere with and (in the long run) alienate booth staff as to the true nature of their job. The projection manuals from the UK are plenty of material, independent from the company, mind you, and still remain general enough to allow for location-specific training.

But the AMC theatres around Minneapolis have similar reputations as the one mentioned above, and I don't see AMC wising up in the near future. Patrons do care about quality presentation, though. We draw plenty a crowd away from the neighboring Har Mar & Pavillion theatres (AMC & Regal, respectively).
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-13-2005, 10:33 PM:
 

quote: William Hooper

---

So the quality of each car coming off the assembly line at a plant is just a small detail?

The non-evasive way of saying it is that "The focus of the company is not on the quality of their product, but on keeping the operation cheap so as to maximize profit."

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

Lets say you have 3,475 children. You want to take care of them as best you can, but you can't watch them all. So you hire babysitters and give them rules and pay them for their service. But not all of the babysitters follow the rules properly, or simply don't care, so some of your children don't get taken care of as well as the others. But that was never your intention, you wanted all of the children to be raised right.

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

It is that it is impossible for the management of any company with that many products to oversee each product and make sure every detail of the product is taken care of. That is the basic managerial challange of any large company, and it appears that AMC has some work to do.

---

quote: William Hooper

---

And tell me what products on the shelf at Home Depot or Wal-Mart have the frequency of utter shoddiness of those shows described. Nobody else could stay in business putting out variably crappy product like that at the retail level; retailers wouldn't stock the goods due to their lack of quality control.

---

quote: William Hooper

---

No, let's not use a father figure/authority figure allusion to distract from the issue. When they're used in politics or business, it's always creepy wondering if the person thought of them in a sort of scary personal Rorschach process or if they're being intentionally constructed for manipulation.

---

quote:

---

Imagine an AMC airline.....!

---

And you thought tail wraps caused a lot of damage now!
 

---

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 12-14-2005, 02:04 PM:
 
I know what brain wraps are, but what's a tail wrap?
 

---

Posted by Bryan Fournier (Member # 264) on 12-14-2005, 02:17 PM:
 
A tail wrap is when the end of the film (tail) becomes unsecured and "wraps" around the platter deck support arm or something else it's not supposed to. Usually winds up in a mess with the print doing a dance off the platter.

But at least no one loses a life!
 

---

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 12-14-2005, 02:20 PM:
 
Ah! Ok, I see.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2005, 02:22 PM:
 
I have never worked in a multi booth, but it seems like the solution to the problem that started this whole series of rants would have been pretty simple: Get the "projectionist" to LOOK OUT THE FRICKING BOOTH WINDOW once in a while. I know a multi booth is a busy place, but you can't tell me a "projectionist" can't look at the screen image at least a few times during a film's run, and certainly when it first starts.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-14-2005, 03:14 PM:
 
That is the worst thing. No matter how little training the "projectionist" has, 99% of major issues could be resolved just by looking out the window after pressing start and again as the feature comes on.

Another thing that I don't understand. Why when there is a major projection problem (like the aperture not seated so 1/3 of the screen is black) am I the ONLY person in the theatre that ever gets up to complain? I guess people assume it will be fixed.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-14-2005, 03:29 PM:
 
No doubt the presentation quality was poor, but I thought that the real travesty in the article was the shitty customer service that the guy received when he complained.

Even if the manager didn't have a clue about how movies are shown (and, really, it shouldn't be his job), he should have immediately thanked the customer for bringing the matter to his attention, and then called to his staff to immediately a) confirm that there was a real problem and b) fix the problem in question. He should then have followed up a minute or two later by looking at the screen himself to ensure that the problem had been fixed. The manager should have also offered passes or other compensation to the man who complained.

Obviously, the operator should have changed the lens, masking, and aperture plate and doing so would have made the whole episode unnecessary, but it's even more important that the manager attend to complaints quickly and ensure that they are resolved. This is what will keep or lose the customer for forever.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-14-2005, 04:01 PM:
 
Some of the chains will fire an employee if they are watching a movie "on the clock." Ushers become concessionists then projectionists. I know of a chain theatre where the portholes were permanently closed with cardboard so that no one could blame the projectionist for watching a movie.

It took me 2 years to get the guy to actually look outside. In the old days in the same theatre the Union guy would start, then check out the port, and then walk around to listen to the sound in each theatre and at the same time, close the auditorium door. Times have changed. Louis
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 12-14-2005, 04:26 PM:
 
I watch the projection port here at the local chain when I'm a customer. The "threader" punches the start button, and away they go. Not even a glance out the port window.
I have NEVER watched a movie there that was in focus.
And like Lyle, I'm the only one to go complain (which I relish )
And I ALWAYS get blank stares from the droids on duty. "Huh? We have film and a projectors in the building?"
Always takes them two-three minutes to decide what to do about it.
Pathetic
I disagree Scott, any manager worth his salt should know how to do every job in the building that pertains to the main frigging reason he is there. No, not the concession stand as most believe.

Ah yes Louis, union projection days, when men were men and projectionists were projectionists.

Hell, no one even bothers to close the auditorium doors around here.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-14-2005, 05:30 PM:
 
How can anyone properly manage a movie theater if they don't know how the product is prepared and presented to the guests? That's like saying a restaurant manager doesn't need to know anything about the preparation or serving of food.

Aw crap, that analogy doesn't work if the movie theater manager actually believes his main product is popcorn.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-14-2005, 06:11 PM:
 
I just thought of a mini-analogy that exhibitors don't seem to get. Disney World is basically a giant concession and souvineer stand. But.....Disney makes great quality rides and attractions that make people want to be there and buy the concessions and souvineers.

Exhibitors need to understand that although the goal of the business is to sell popcorn, the way to reach the goal is to provide an experience that people enjoy.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2005, 06:29 PM:
 
Boy, you got that right about Disney. In our family room at home we have a "Goofy" phone which talks in Goofy's voice when it rings. (RI-I-I-NG! "Hey, sumbody hit the snooze button, willyuh?") The thing cost $89. We would NEVER have bought such a thing if we hadn't been in Disney World, but danged if it doesn't give me a nice fuzzy feeling every time I look at it.
 

---

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 12-14-2005, 10:00 PM:
 
I learned projection at a 24 plex where I was always responsible for 12 screens. When we had a minor problem, one of us would pick up the slack. I had nights where a "minor" brain wrap became a thrown print and I'd have to cover all 24 starts. It's not impossible for a mulitplex projectionist to check the quality of the showing everytime. If a theater has its standards set, it is possible to make them happen. Yes, sometimes a lens will slip out of focus. Yes, sometimes sound will switch. When these happen it is the duty of the floor personnel to take the complaint quickly and politely and relay the problem to the projectionist who should then make it a priority to fix the problem ASAP. Often I meet new projectionists who think they have the fun easy job and don't plan out their shifts, therein lie late starts, bad presentation and the possibility for bigger problems.

Granted not every show can go 100% right but the writer's complaints are legit and I believe the downfall of the modern multiplex.

---Matt
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-15-2005, 12:47 AM:
 
Quality presentation is something that needs to happen from the top of the company down-CEO to floorstaff.

The problem with the big chains-and some small theatres-is that they think good presentation just 'happens'. Its not so much that they don't care if they're films are out of frame, out of focus, scratched, etc. They just think the job is so easy it should be a non-issue. Hell, at the company I work for every projector has a sign posted next to it (an obnoxiously orange sign) with a picture of that type of projector head (yes it is specific-we have Christies and Centurys and the Christies have Christie picture next to them and the Centurys have Century pictures next to them) and a short paragraph reminding the projectionist that it is very important to start movies in frame. It even instructs one on how to turn the projector over by hand to make sure the intermittent is in the stopped position and also warns not the try and force the framing knob too far in either direction if you do start out of frame.

Now, do I think that every theatre in my company always has there shows start in frame because of this sign? I wouldn't put a penny on it. I personally always start movies in frame, but do I do it because of the sign telling me to? Of course not. I do it because I know starting in frame is a basic part of a quality presentation, and on the rare occasion I do start out of frame I am quite embarassed about it.

The major chains need to realize that quality presentation doesn't just happen, that running the booth isn't a part time job. We get checkers to make sure the concession staff are upselling. The same checkers are supposed to do a presentation check, but its always the same thing on the report 'the sound was clear and the picture was bright and properly maksed.' Now this is partly because we have a decent presentation at my theatre, but when you see the exact same wording on every checker report you kind of realize its just being copied and pasted. I remember once we got a used print of some movie that was scratched to shit. Same thing on the report though, guess we had a perfect presentation. The chains need to train 'presentation checkers' and send them out to check on theatre's presentations. They shouldn't be but I'm willing to bet many CEO's and COO's would be shocked by what they reported.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 12-15-2005, 02:15 AM:
 
Getting back to the original problem of unverified show starts, I've found that quite often when I train new employees in the booth that this is one of the hardest things for them to grasp and remember. I find myself repeating hundreds of times whilst supervising a show start done by a trainee, "Check the picture for framing and focus... No, look out the port window... Yes, does it look in frame and in focus? Does it? Look at the picture on the screen please. Does it look in frame and in focus? Its not a trick question, I promise. " Then I have to do the same thing for checking sound via the monitor. Young kids' natural desire is to press the button and split for the next thread asap. It's very hard to train that out of them.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2005, 05:42 PM:
 
David said:
>>I probably mentioned this in some other thread a long time ago, but he liked to randomly drop in at his theaters, unannounced, so he could see for himself if things were being run properly, including walking at least one auditorium.<<

I worked for a guy who would do this too...he was a showman also. Whenever he came into the theatre there would be a mad panic to call the booth and let me know he was coming in. My response was indifference...not to him or his importance, it's just that, well, it should be right in the first place...it shouldn't have to get 'better' just because he's taking a look around. And it was.

The managers and floor staff never seemed to get that fact and all looked busy as he arrived. My thinking is that they should have been looking that way regardless of his appearance on site.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-16-2005, 04:25 AM:
 

quote: Matt Fields

---

Wal Mart employees do not have to operate machinery everytime they sell the product off the shelf. A better example would be a fast food restuarant. They do a good job of making every burger taste the same, just like every screening should be the same.

---